get_personal_info

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return shape (age, weight, height, biological sex, email) plus the notable 'if available' caveat on email. It also implies the scope is the authenticated user only. It stops short of stating auth failure behavior or whether values are cached/refreshed.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and actor, followed by the returned fields. No filler, no redundancy with the name.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: who the data is about and what fields come back. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; per the baseline for parameterless tools this scores 4. The description correctly adds no parameter claims, keeping it aligned with the empty 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get personal information') scoped to 'the authenticated Oura user,' and enumerates the concrete fields returned. Against siblings that are all sleep/activity/webhook-specific, it is unmistakably the profile-retrieval tool.

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 rather than stated: there is no explicit 'use this when...' clause, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. Since it is the only personal-info tool in the sibling set, the risk of misuse is low, but the description itself provides no routing guidance.

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