oura_sleep

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), lowering the burden. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by clarifying what data is fetched and the semantic relationship (the score is 'built from' the raw periods). No contradiction with annotations; the read-only framing is consistent.

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 compact and front-loaded, opening with the core purpose before adding the parameter note. Every sentence earns its place, and the Args block is a clean addition rather than repetition.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the essentials: what's returned, the date parameter, and default behavior. Minor gaps include no explicit differentiation among overlapping siblings (sleep_time, readiness, daily_summary) and no note on result scope/size, but nothing an agent needs to call correctly is missing.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description's Args section fully documents the lone 'date' parameter: its format (YYYY-MM-DD) and its default semantics (null → today). This completely compensates for the bare schema and disambiguates a potential null-means-optional 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed sleep data for a date'), and enumerates exactly what's returned: the daily sleep score, its contributors, and raw sleep periods with duration, stages, heart rate, and HRV. This detailed data listing effectively separates it from siblings like oura_sleep_time and oura_readiness, though it never explicitly names a sibling it is not.

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?

Usage context is only implied through the data-content description — an agent can infer it's for when detailed sleep breakdown is needed. There is no explicit 'use this when' or 'don't use this when' guidance, and no alternative tools are named. This is adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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