oura_personal_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries a low burden. The description consistently says 'Get' and does not contradict annotations, but it adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., authentication, rate limits, or what happens if the profile is incomplete). Since annotations cover the core safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, and fields with zero wasted words. The content is immediately useful to an agent deciding whether to call this tool.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema and a clear description of returned fields, nothing is missing. The agent knows exactly what this tool does and what data it retrieves, and the low complexity means the description is fully sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (no properties). According to the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately lists the fields returned, which adds value beyond the empty schema by clarifying what the response contains.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('account profile') and enumerates the exact fields returned (age, weight, height, biological sex, email). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like oura_sleep or oura_activity, which focus on specific health metrics rather than the user's profile.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned. However, the name and content make the intended use obvious (retrieving the user's profile), so usage is implied rather than stated, which meets the baseline for implied guidance.

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