summarize_whoop_period

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add a genuine behavioral trait beyond the annotations: results are bounded to 250 records, which warns about truncation. It does not disclose what aggregation is applied or whether the bound silently truncates versus errors.

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 clause with no filler and no redundancy. It is efficient, though bordering on under-specification given how little it says about parameters and return behavior.

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?

With no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the description should explain what a 'summary' returns (aggregates? averages? per-day rows?) and the accepted date formats. The 250-record cap is mentioned but the truncation behavior and result shape are left entirely undefined, which is inadequate for a three-required-parameter aggregation tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It does helpfully enumerate the plausible 'kind' values (cycle/recovery/sleep/workout), which is the single most useful thing it could say. However, the required 'start' and 'end' parameters get no explanation at all — no expected date format, inclusivity, or range semantics.

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 phrase 'cycle/recovery/sleep/workout statistics' names the resources covered and implies an aggregation, but the verb is only implied by the name 'summarize' and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like compare_whoop_periods or the list_whoop_* tools. An agent knows roughly what data domain it touches, not exactly what operation it performs.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given: nothing says whether to prefer this over compare_whoop_periods for multi-period analysis, or over list_whoop_cycles/list_whoop_sleep for raw records. The 250-record bound hints at a size limit but doesn't tell the agent when to choose an alternative.

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