get_recovery

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It lists returned metrics but does not mention default limit behavior, date-filter semantics, ordering, timezone handling, or authentication requirements. For a retrieval tool this is a moderate gap, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the fact that data is being retrieved.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists relevant data fields. No unnecessary words or repeated schema information; it earns every word.

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?

The description combined with the schema gives an agent enough to make a basic call: identify the tool and know the date/limit parameters. However, without an output schema or annotations, it lacks return-format details, default behavior, and edge-case information. The absence of this context makes it adequate but not 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters (limit, start_date, end_date), setting the baseline at 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema says; it merely lists the metrics returned. It neither improves nor harms parameter understanding.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'WHOOP recovery data', then lists specific metrics (recovery score, HRV, resting heart rate, SpO2, skin temperature). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_sleep and get_workouts, which target different data domains.

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 implies that this tool is for recovery-related data, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over siblings or mention alternatives. There are no exclusionary statements or conditional guidance. An agent can infer usage from the resource name, but the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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