oura_trends

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 description doesn't need to repeat safety. It adds the behavioral detail that results are ordered 'most recent last' and that the default lookback is 7 days, which is valuable beyond the structured data.

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 with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter is explained immediately after. Every word adds value, and it's appropriately sized for a single-parameter read-only 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?

Given the tool's simple interface (one optional integer parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which covers return structure), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameter semantics, default behavior, and result ordering. There are no missing execution details.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully carries the parameter burden. It explicitly explains 'days' as 'Number of days to look back, including today' and documents the default (7), which the schema only provides as a bare integer. There is only one parameter, and this is complete.

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 action ('Get') and the resource (daily sleep, readiness, activity and stress scores) and specifies the temporal scope ('over a range of days'). It differentiates from siblings by covering multiple metrics at once, unlike single-metric tools like oura_sleep or oura_activity.

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 the use case: retrieving a trend of multiple daily scores over a period. It gives clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternative tools. However, the contrast with sibling names (e.g., oura_sleep, oura_stress) makes the intended usage reasonably obvious.

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