oura_stress

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 agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the date parameter default ('defaults to today') and the 'daily' scope, which is useful but does not go beyond what annotations imply. No contradiction with annotations.

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 plus an argument list, with the main purpose first. It is front-loaded and avoids fluff. It could be even more compact (e.g., moving the arg spec into the schema), but it is appropriately sized for a simple 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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no required args) and an output schema exists (though not shown). The description covers the purpose and the parameter format/default. It does not mention potential timezone implications or response structure, but given the output schema presence, this is acceptable.

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 schema has zero description coverage for the 'date' parameter, so the description carries the full burden. It provides the format (YYYY-MM-DD) and default behavior (defaults to today), which are not present in the schema. This is necessary and helpful for correct invocation.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Get daily stress and recovery time for a date.' This is specific and matches the tool name. It does not explicitly differentiate from the many sibling oura_* tools, but the metric (stress and recovery time) is distinct enough for an agent to infer its purpose.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many siblings (oura_readiness, oura_resilience, oura_daily_summary, etc.). The description only states what it does, not when to prefer it or what alternatives exist. An agent must guess which tool fits based solely on names.

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