Today's WHOOP summary

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that data is fetched live on every call with no caching, that the answer ends with a version-update notice to relay to the user, and that failures surface a message pointing at get_auth_url when WHOOP isn't connected. The annotations cover safety/idempotency, and the description adds caching, freshness, version and auth-failure behavior on top.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary purpose and scoping/'use it first' guidance early, with failure modes last. The middle sentence enumerating every returned field is long and dense, but it is information-dense rather than filler, so only minor trimming is possible.

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 burden of describing return shape and does so exhaustively (per-section fields, dated sections, Markdown format). Auth, connectivity, freshness and version-notice behaviors are all covered, leaving no obvious gap for an agent to call this correctly.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed; there is no parameter semantics to add.

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 ('Returns the user's latest WHOOP status as Markdown') and then enumerates the three sections returned (recovery, sleep, strain). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like get_workouts or get_sleep_analysis, which cover different scopes.

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?

Explicitly names the trigger conditions ('how am I today?', 'should I train hard?') and the alternatives for a different scope ('For more than one day, use get_recovery_trends, get_sleep_analysis, get_strain_history or get_workouts'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered with named siblings.

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