oura_heartrate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: no return granularity (samples vs. aggregates), no pagination or size limits, no auth requirements, and no statement that this is a read-only operation. 'Over time' hints only vaguely at a time series.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to be maximally useful given the missing behavioral detail.

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 this is minimally adequate: the schema covers the inputs and no output schema exists to explain. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say more about what a heart rate 'time series' response looks like and how large a range can be requested.

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 the schema already documents both start_date and end_date with format guidance. The description adds no extra semantics such as default ranges, timezone handling, or whether end_date is inclusive, so 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('heart rate data') with a temporal scope ('over time'). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the sibling tools (sleep, readiness, activity) cover distinct data domains, so there is little real ambiguity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites such as Oura authentication or data availability. The only implied usage is the date-range focus carried by the parameter names.

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