oura_readiness

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 safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that—it mentions 'contributors' and a default date—but does not disclose any additional behavior such as rate limits, authentication, or data freshness. Since annotations carry the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate; there is no contradiction.

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 sentences, fully front-loaded with the purpose, and includes only necessary parameter documentation. Every word earns its place—there is no filler or redundant explanation. It achieves high clarity with minimal text.

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 existing output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It states the purpose, the parameter format, and the default behavior. It does not explain what the 'contributors' are, but that is likely covered by the output schema. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit mention of the response granularity (per-day), which is implied by the date argument.

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 input schema has one optional parameter with a default of null and no description. The tool description explicitly provides the expected format ('YYYY-MM-DD') and the actual default ('today'), which adds meaning the schema lacks. With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by clarifying the parameter's format and semantics.

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 the verb 'Get' and a specific resource ('the readiness score and its contributors') for a date. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like oura_sleep or oura_stress, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is unambiguous and likely to route an agent correctly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of when not to use it. The only contextual hint is the default to 'today', which implies typical usage but does not explain scenarios where another Oura tool would be more appropriate. The description does not help the agent decide between readiness and other metric tools.

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