Polar Data Inventory

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds context that it does not call Polar APIs or expose user data, reinforcing safety and clarifying what the tool actually does beyond annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and key exclusions. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

For a simple informational tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (inventory of data domains, auth scopes, privacy boundaries, recommended first calls) and its non-API nature. No gaps remain for an agent to execute 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 has one parameter (response_format) with enum but no description (0% coverage). The tool description does not mention the parameter, even though it controls output format. The enum values are self-explanatory, but the description should have explicitly stated the parameter's role.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Inventory' and specific resources: data domains, auth scope requirements, privacy boundary, and recommended first calls. It distinguishes from siblings by noting it does not call Polar APIs or expose user data, making its purpose unique.

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 implies use for understanding prerequisites before making API calls and notes it does not call APIs, guiding agents away from using it for data retrieval. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use scenarios.

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