get_training_recommendation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool uses today's recovery score and last 3 days of sleep, returns a recovery band, guidance, and a sleep debt warning. This implies a read-only operation with no side effects. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but for a simple read tool, the disclosure is adequate.

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: first states what it does and inputs; second provides usage examples and an additional behavioral note (sleep debt warning). Every word earns its place. Front-loaded with essential purpose. No waste.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and zero parameters, the description is nearly self-contained. It explains inputs, output format (recovery band, guidance, warning), and use case. Could be slightly more complete by stating it is read-only or clarifying that data is real-time, but overall sufficient for a simple 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 no parameters (0 params, schema coverage 100%), so baseline is 4 per the rule. The description adds context about what internal data the tool uses (recovery score, sleep performance) but does not describe parameter semantics since none exist. No contradiction with 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?

The description uses specific language: 'Get a coaching recommendation for today based on today's WHOOP recovery score and the last 3 days of sleep performance.' It clearly defines the verb (get), resource (coaching recommendation), and scope (today, using recovery and sleep). It also gives example questions that differentiate it from raw data siblings like get_recovery and get_sleep.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to answer

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