health_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool returns a natural-language summary, includes conditional logic (raw vitals if no WHOOP recovery), and lists components. Does not discuss auth or rate limits, but for a read-only summary tool, this is sufficient. Lacks potential error or limitation details, but overall transparent.

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 efficient sentences: first states purpose and contents, second gives usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded.

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?

Given zero parameters, existence of output schema, and sibling tools for specifics, the description is complete. It covers purpose, contents, and when to use. Output format is presumably in the output schema, so not required here.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. Baseline is 4 as per guidelines. Description does not need to add parameter info.

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 it returns a natural-language summary of recent physiological state, listing contents like sleep, recovery, workout, step trend. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying it is for 'how is rajan doing' while siblings are for specific follow-ups.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'This is the tool to call for "how is rajan doing" -- everything else below is for a more specific follow-up question.' Clearly tells when to use and implies when to use alternatives.

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