polar_get_authorization_url

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint:true, idempotent:true, and destructiveHint:false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral details beyond stating it generates a URL, which is already implied. It does not contradict the annotations, but also does not go beyond them, so the bar for adding context above annotations is not met.

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 concise, two sentences long, and directly states the purpose and required input. No unnecessary fluff or repetition beyond the schema, making it well-structured and efficient.

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?

This is a simple tool with two parameters, one required, no output schema, and no nested objects. The description clearly explains its role in the OAuth flow, and sibling tools like polar_exchange_authorization_code provide the context for the next step. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to use it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters, with clear descriptions for clientId and redirectUri. The tool description repeats the clientId requirement but does not add any extra semantic detail beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states that the tool generates the Polar OAuth authorization URL for starting the OAuth flow and obtaining an authorization code. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like exchange_authorization_code, which is the subsequent step.

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 start the OAuth flow,' giving clear context for when to invoke it. It implies the next step (exchange_authorization_code) without naming it directly, but the sibling list makes the usage context clear. Missing an explicit 'instead of' alternative, hence not a 5.

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