polar_list_physical_info

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

The description discloses an important behavioral nuance: it 'creates a temporary transaction' but does not commit, meaning data remains available for future pulls. This goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint: false) and clarifies the side effect profile, even though idempotency is not explicitly discussed.

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 exactly two sentences with no verbose preamble. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second provides a concise behavioral caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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 gives enough context for the agent to know what data is listed and that a format parameter controls output. No output schema is provided, but the enumerated fields and format parameter partially compensate. It could mention return structure, but this is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 single parameter 'format' is fully documented in the schema with an enum (markdown/json), default value, and a clear description. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add extra parameter semantics; baseline 3 applies.

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 the tool's specific verb ('List') and resource ('physical information entries'), and enumerates the exact data types included (weight, height, heart rate zones, VO2 max). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like polar_list_sleep or polar_list_nightly_recharge without needing to open the schema.

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 makes it obvious when to use the tool (when physical info is needed), but the description does not explicitly compare it to alternatives or state when not to use it. The transaction note is more about side effects than usage guidance.

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