Today's WHOOP summary

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent safety, but the description adds substantial context: it fetches live data on every call and keeps no copy, reports a newer-version notice to pass on, explains the failure message when WHOOP is unreachable, and instructs to call get_auth_url when not connected. This is rich behavioral disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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 description is front-loaded with what is returned, then usage and alternatives, then behavioral notes. Every sentence adds operational value: the return contents, sibling routing, live-fetch semantics, version notice, and connection fallback all matter to an agent deciding whether and how to call this tool.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining return values and does so in detail (Markdown format, exact fields included). It also covers preconditions (WHOOP connected) and failure behavior, making it complete for an agent.

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 schema carries no parameter meaning to supplement; the baseline for no parameters is 4. The description correctly does not invent arguments, instead describing the returned payload.

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 names a specific resource (latest WHOOP status) and enumerates precisely what is returned: recovery score/zone/HRV/RHR/SpO2/skin temp, last night's sleep details, and today's strain with calories and heart rate. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the trend/analysis tools for multi-day questions.

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?

It explicitly states when to use it first ('how am I today?', 'should I train hard?') and when to use alternatives instead ('For more than one day, use get_recovery_trends, get_sleep_analysis, get_strain_history or get_workouts'). No inference is required.

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