Self-check of the Oura connection

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

The description adds crucial safety context beyond the annotations: 'Exposing nothing', 'Returns neither the token nor any health value', and 'It reports the token's LENGTH, never the token'. It also explains the rationale (diagnostic messages may be copied), which is not present in the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations.

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 compact, with the first sentence stating the core purpose and the second paragraph providing essential security context. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 diagnostic tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description fully covers behavioral expectations: what it checks, what it returns (token length), what it never returns, and why. There are no gaps that could lead to misuse.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema is empty (100% coverage). Per baseline for 0 params, the description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics, and the description adds appropriate context about what it does with the token.

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 clearly states the purpose: 'is there a credential, and does Oura respond?' It identifies a specific diagnostic resource (the Oura connection) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (oura_collections, oura_query) by focusing on connectivity/credential checking rather than data retrieval.

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 term 'Self-check' implies usage when you need to verify the connection or diagnose issues, providing clear context. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but since this is a unique diagnostic tool with no overlapping siblings, explicit when-not-to-use guidance isn't necessary.

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