Get WHOOP recovery

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses sort order, the meaning of created_at vs the referenced sleep, and the non-obvious date-range/sleep-window matching quirk that would otherwise cause off-by-one confusion. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and error behavior, so it stops short of a 5.

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 core content is front-loaded and dense with useful detail, but the final sentence ('WHOOP matches the range against the activity's own start/end window') largely restates the earlier note and introduces the word 'activity' in a recovery tool, which is confusing rather than additive.

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?

For a read-only list tool with a full input schema and an output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs — ordering, field meanings, pagination, and the critical date-range quirk — without having to explain return values. Only the absence of any auth/permission context keeps it from being fully complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns above that by adding real semantics the schema lacks: the range is matched against the underlying sleep window, so an end date of day N still returns the recovery scored on N+1. It also ties start/end to range selection and next_token to paging, though it does not clarify limit behavior.

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 opening sentence names a specific resource ('recovery records') and states ordering ('newest first'), then enumerates the payload fields, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. However, it never distinguishes this tool from the sibling get_recovery_for_cycle, leaving the retrieval-by-date-range vs retrieval-by-cycle choice to inference.

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?

It states the mechanics of use ('Use start/end to select a date range and next_token to page'), which implies the intended workflow, and the sleep-window caveat implicitly explains when boundary days include an extra record. It gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never mentions the sibling alternative.

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