oura_readiness

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 doesn't state that this is a read-only operation, what authentication it needs, how far back dates can go, whether end_date is inclusive, or what the response looks like. Only the list of returned metrics adds any behavioral signal.

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 the resource named first and no redundant or filler content. Nothing to trim.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description partly compensates by naming the four returned metrics, which is genuinely useful. However, for a date-range read tool with no annotations, it omits output format, date-range limits, and behavior when end_date is absent, leaving real gaps.

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%, with both start_date and end_date documented as YYYY-MM-DD strings, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing beyond the schema about parameter behavior (no range limits, no default when end_date is omitted).

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?

Specific verb 'Get' plus a named resource ('daily readiness score') and an enumeration of the returned metrics (HRV balance, resting heart rate, body temperature). This clearly separates it from oura_sleep/oura_activity/oura_heartrate even though those siblings are never named. It stops short of explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word 'daily' and the readiness-specific metrics tell an agent this is the recovery/readiness endpoint rather than sleep, activity, or heart-rate. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over its siblings and no mention of any date-range restrictions.

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