get_whoop_guide

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: it tells the agent the guide covers limits and privacy policy, and that no account/auth is required — useful for deciding whether it can be called up front. It doesn't say whether the output is static or versioned, so it's not a 5.

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?

Two short clauses, front-loaded with the substantive content list and closed with the key constraint (no account needed). Nothing is filler and no sentence overstays its purpose.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema help tool, the description covers what topics the guide addresses and the auth precondition, which is essentially everything an agent needs. The only minor gap is not stating that the return value is static reference text versus live data.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly avoids wasting words on non-existent inputs.

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 enumerates the concrete contents of the guide (capabilities, units, limits, privacy, first-use guidance), which makes it clearly a documentation/help resource rather than a data fetch, distinguishing it from all the data-oriented siblings. It stops short of an explicit verb+resource statement like 'Returns the WHOOP API guide', leaving the noun phrase to imply the action.

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?

'First-use guidance' hints at calling it before other tools, and 'No account needed' signals it's safe to call before auth is set up, but the description never explicitly says 'call this first' or names an alternative. Usage must be inferred from the content list rather than stated.

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