oura_sleep_time

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral trait of sparsity, informing the agent that results may be absent on certain dates, which is valuable beyond the annotations. It does not elaborate on exact return structure, but the presence of an output schema mitigates that.

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 sentences plus a parameter note, with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, the sparsity warning is concise, and the parameter details are neatly placed. It is a model of efficiency.

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 a single optional parameter, a clear output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers essential calling context. The sparsity note handles data availability, and the parameter default is explicit. It lacks only a statement about handling empty responses, but the sparsity warning implies that possibility, making it sufficiently complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the `date` parameter's format (YYYY-MM-DD) and default behavior (defaults to today). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema, making the parameter clear and actionable.

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'), a resource ('Oura's recommended bedtime window'), and the comparison with last night's actual bedtime. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like oura_sleep, which likely covers broader sleep data, by focusing on the recommendation window.

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 implies usage for retrieving sleep-time recommendations but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like oura_sleep. The sparsity note ('only populated on days Oura had enough history') provides a context cue about data availability, but no explicit routing or exclusion guidance is given.

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