oura_vo2_max

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description goes beyond these by warning that data is sparse (computed periodically) and clarifying that a null/default date resolves to today. This adds valuable behavioral context that annotations do not convey, though it does not detail error handling or empty-result behavior, which is mitigated by the presence of an output schema.

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 brief Args section, with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, the sparse warning is directly relevant, and the parameter explanation is concise. 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 has only one optional parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It covers the essential behavioral caveat (sparse data) and the default date meaning. Nothing needed for an agent to call the tool 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?

The input schema has zero description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly defines the date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and that it defaults to today, which is not clear from the schema alone (schema shows default null). This fully clarifies the sole parameter's semantics.

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 tool retrieves the estimated VO2 max for a date, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like oura_cardiovascular_age or oura_activity by focusing solely on VO2 max, and the sparse-data warning adds specificity to what the tool returns.

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 does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide explicit exclusion conditions. The sparse-data note is about the nature of the data, not about choosing between tools. With 17 sibling tools, some usage guidance would be helpful, but none is provided.

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