polar_get_user

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and side-effect transparency. The description adds the return content (user details), but does not mention output format or potential errors. This is acceptable given the annotation coverage, but not rich in extra behavioral context.

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 a single, clear sentence with no redundant words. It directly states the tool's purpose and key output fields, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

The description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does and what it returns. It lacks details about prerequisites such as authentication, but that is likely shared across all Polar tools and not specific to this one. Overall, it provides sufficient context for a simple getter.

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 only parameter 'format' is fully described in the schema with an enum and default. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema, hitting the baseline score.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as the registered Polar user, with explicit details (registration date, name, physical attributes). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like polar_get_heart_rate or polar_get_sleepwise, which target other data.

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 purpose is implicit: it is the go-to tool for user profile information. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or specify conditions for when to prefer this over others, leaving some inference to the agent.

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