oura_data

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description confirms by implying data retrieval. The description adds valuable behavioral context: daily collections have a 7-day default, time-series require ISO-8601 datetimes, list collections paginate via next_token, and document_id fetches a single record. No annotation contradiction exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is fairly long but well-structured with a clear opening, bullet-point collection list, and separate parameter usage notes. While every sentence adds value, it could be slightly more concise by grouping common parameter patterns. Still, it remains readable and informative.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, 19 collections, no output schema), the description covers all necessary usage contexts: parameter selection by collection type, default behaviors, pagination, and single-document retrieval. It is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly without needing additional external documentation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning by explaining which parameters apply to which collection types, the default date range, and the semantics of latest and document_id. This goes beyond the schema's field descriptions, justifying a 4.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description starts with 'Fetch data from the Oura Ring API v2' and enumerates all 19 collection types with brief summaries, clearly distinguishing the resource and scope. It separates daily, time-series, and singleton collections, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiating it from a sibling like 'info'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance on which date parameters to use for daily vs. time-series collections, explains the default behavior when omitted, and covers pagination via next_token. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over the sibling 'info' tool, which serves a distinct purpose, so a full 5 is not warranted.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.