oura_activity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It enumerates returned data fields but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, whether the range is inclusive, or what happens on missing days — meaningful gaps for a data-fetch tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource and its key contents front-loaded; every word earns its place and there is no filler.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the resource and the fields returned. It only lacks confirmation of read-only nature and date-range semantics.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both start_date and end_date are already documented as YYYY-MM-DD with end_date optional. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., max range, inclusivity), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') plus resource ('daily activity data') and enumerates the returned fields (steps, calories, activity score). It is clear on its own, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like oura_readiness or oura_heartrate, which also aggregate daily metrics.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: no note that this is for activity/steps tracking versus the sleep or readiness siblings, and no mention of the date-range requirement or default behavior. The agent must infer the selection context from the tool name alone.

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