oura_cardiovascular_age

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the purpose: 'for a date' merely reflects the parameter, not additional behavior like return format, pagination, or side effects. With annotations covering safety, the description should still add nuance (e.g., that it returns a single value per date), but it does not.

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 extremely concise: one line for purpose and one line for the argument. The purpose is front-loaded, and there is zero filler. It earns its place by providing the essential format and default for the parameter without redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 parameter) and that an output schema exists (so return values are documented separately), the description is sufficient. It covers the only parameter and relies on annotations for safety. The only minor gap is not explaining what 'estimated vascular age' or 'pulse wave velocity' mean, but this is likely domain knowledge and not necessary for invocation.

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 description coverage is 0% for the 'date' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does so by specifying the format 'YYYY-MM-DD' and the default 'today', which are not present in the input schema. This gives the agent clear guidance on how to construct the argument, fully covering the single parameter.

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 explicitly states the action 'Get' and the specific resource 'estimated vascular age and pulse wave velocity', making it clear what the tool returns. The resource is unique among siblings (no other tool mentions cardiovascular age), so it is easily distinguished without opening schemas.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (oura_sleep, oura_stress, etc.). There is no mention of prerequisites, alternative tools, or conditions that would make this the appropriate choice. The only clue is the resource name, which implies it is for cardiovascular data but does not explicitly route the agent.

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