oura_heart_rate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond that—it does not mention data granularity, rate limits, or any behavioral constraints. Given the strong annotation coverage, this is acceptable but adds no extra value.

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 short paragraphs: a purpose statement plus a use case, followed by parameter documentation. The critical information is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place. No redundancy or fluff.

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 covers the tool's purpose, use case, and both parameters. An output schema exists (as indicated by context signals), so return-value details are managed by that schema. The only minor gap is the lack of any mention of time range constraints or data resolution, but these are not critical for basic 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%, so the schema provides only types and titles. The description fully compensates by documenting both parameters with ISO 8601 format and concrete examples for start_datetime and end_datetime. This allows an agent to construct valid datetime strings without ambiguity.

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 states 'Get continuous heart rate samples for a time window,' which precisely identifies the verb (get), resource (continuous heart rate samples), and scope (time window). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like oura_sleep or oura_activity, which cover different physiological 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?

It provides a concrete use case ('correlating with untracked activity or workouts'), giving context on when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the use case implicitly guides selection.

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