oura_consultar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool follows pagination to completion and warns that without this, only the first page is returned. It also reveals volume estimates and date-format caveats for different collections, which is valuable behavioral context beyond just a read operation.

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 concise, with the main purpose as the first sentence, followed by critical pagination warning and date-format details. Every sentence adds value; no redundant fluff. Well-structured for quick scanning.

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 adequately covers the key complexities: pagination, date formats, and range-less collections. It doesn't describe output structure (no output schema) or error cases, but for this tool's complexity the information is nearly sufficient. A note on behavior with invalid ranges would push it to 5.

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 describes all parameters (100% coverage), but the description adds meaning by specifying which collections use AAAA-MM-DD versus ISO 8601, and which collections do not accept range parameters. This nuances the schema descriptions and helps the agent choose correct formats.

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 tool retrieves a complete Oura collection for the requested range ('Trae una colección de Oura COMPLETA en el rango pedido'). It is specific about the resource (collection) and verb (brings), but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like oura_colecciones or oura_revisar, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus its siblings (oura_colecciones, oura_revisar). The description provides operational details (pagination, date formats) but not selection criteria, so it offers no explicit usage recommendations.

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