Complete WHOOP login

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

The description adds a valuable behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the state parameter is 'verified against the pending login before the code is used.' This discloses a safety check and order of operations. The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat the mutation/network effects, but it enriches the behavioral understanding.

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 succinct and front-loaded. The core purpose is stated in a single sentence, followed by a brief Args list. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool's function, the Args detail the parameter sources and verification. No fluff or redundancy.

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 two-parameter login completion tool, the description covers the essential context: both parameters are explained, the verification behavior is disclosed, and an output schema is present (so return values are already defined). The only minor gap is that it does not describe what happens on invalid state, but this is not necessary for successful invocation.

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?

The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains both parameters: code is 'the code query parameter from the redirect' and state is 'the state query parameter from the redirect,' with an additional note that state is verified. This provides meaningful semantics that are absent from the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Finish a login using the code and state from the redirect URL.' This is a specific verb ('Finish') and resource ('login'), and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like whoop_login (which initiates login) and whoop_logout (which ends a session). The context of the redirect URL makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool: after obtaining a code and state from a redirect URL. It implies the preceding step of starting a login (via whoop_login) and the pending login state, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' threshold.

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