get_personal_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes beyond them by disclosing the required OAuth scopes (personal, email), which is real authorization context an agent needs before planning a call. It does not cover error behavior if a scope is missing, but the added scope information is substantive.

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?

Two short sentences: first the resource and its contents, then the auth scopes. Nothing is padded and the most important information leads.

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 no-parameter read with annotations already declaring read-only and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (age, weight, height, email) and what it requires to run (scopes). That is everything an agent needs to select and invoke it.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing the description could add about inputs. It instead documents the shape of the returned profile fields, which is useful given there is no output schema.

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?

Names the specific resource (the user's Oura profile) and enumerates the fields returned, so an agent knows exactly what data comes back. The verb is only implied by the tool name, and no sibling is named, but the resource is distinct enough from get_daily/get_recent_summary to be unambiguous.

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 is implied: this is the only profile/metadata tool among data-retrieval siblings, so an agent can infer when to reach for it. There is no explicit 'use this when' or exclusion statement, and no mention of what to use instead for body-composition time series (a plausible confusion point with weight data).

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