oura_sessions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds minimal extra context, such as that sessions can be guided or unguided, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or what happens when no sessions exist. Since annotations cover the core, a 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?

The description is one clear sentence plus a concise Args block. It fronts the purpose immediately and provides parameter details in a structured way. There is no wasted text; every sentence 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?

Given the tool is simple (one parameter, output schema present), the description covers the core usage sufficiently. It explains what sessions are retrieved and the date argument, but does not elaborate on the output structure or potential edge cases. Since the output schema exists, this is acceptable and complete enough for an agent to call correctly.

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 for 'date' has no description (coverage 0%). The description compensates by specifying the format 'YYYY-MM-DD' and the default ('defaults to today'). This adds meaningful meaning beyond the schema's type and default, which otherwise would be ambiguous.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('meditation, breathing and relaxation sessions') for a given date. It is clear and distinct from sibling tools like 'oura_sleep' or 'oura_activity', but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or differentiate itself, which prevents a top score.

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 alternatives. It does not mention any excluded scenarios or compare with sibling tools. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the action of retrieving sessions, but no explicit context or alternative routing is given.

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