oura_activity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the default-date behavior but does not disclose additional traits like response granularity or any edge cases. This is acceptable given annotation coverage.

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 two compact sentences with no filler. The core purpose is stated immediately, followed by a brief parameter specification. Every element earns its place.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what data is returned and how to specify the date. The existing output schema handles return value details. It is complete for practical use, though it could mention the scope (e.g., per-day vs. aggregate) explicitly.

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 schema provides only the parameter type and default (string/null, default null). The description adds the required format 'YYYY-MM-DD' and clarifies that it defaults to today, which is essential for correct invocation. This meaningfully supplements the schema.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Get'), a resource ('daily activity data'), and enumerates the data fields (score, steps, calories, distance, activity time breakdown). It is distinct from sibling tools like oura_sleep or oura_stress, which cover different domains.

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 description implies usage context: when activity data is needed for a date. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings such as oura_daily_summary or oura_workouts, and no exclusions are mentioned.

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