Get Oura profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: that missing scopes yield an error field for that part while the rest of the payload still returns, which directly affects how an agent should parse a partial response. It also confirms the tool takes no arguments.

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 most important fact – what this tool returns – is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by usage, argument count, and partial-failure behavior. All four sentences carry information the agent needs; none is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing the return payload, and it does so field by field, including the error-field-on-missing-scope case. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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?

There are zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. The description explicitly states 'Takes no arguments', consistent with the empty schema, so nothing further is required.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (Oura profile + ring hardware), then enumerates the concrete fields returned: age, height, weight, sex, email, ring model/size/color/firmware/setup date, battery level. This is enough for an agent to distinguish it from siblings like get_daily_overview or get_trends without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear usage contexts ('questions about the person or the device', 'put scores in context, e.g. age next to VO2 max or cardiovascular age'), which is stronger than implied usage. However it never explicitly names an alternative tool or states when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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