Polar Data Inventory

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive). The description adds genuinely new behavioral context that annotations cannot express: it makes no Polar API calls and exposes no user data, clarifying its local/static nature. It stops short of describing how fresh or exhaustive the inventory is.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, non-goals second. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry safety. The description covers purpose, scope, and non-goals adequately. Only the absence of routing guidance against the other orientation-style siblings keeps it from being fully complete.

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?

There is one parameter (response_format), and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds nothing about output formatting. The parameter is a simple two-value enum with a default, so its meaning is largely self-evident from the schema, warranting the baseline rather than a penalty.

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 verb and resource ('Inventory supported Polar data domains') and enumerates the concrete contents (auth scope requirements, privacy boundary, recommended first calls). The closing clause 'Does not call Polar APIs or expose user data' cleanly separates it from the many siblings that actually fetch Polar data, so an agent can distinguish it without opening any 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 phrase 'recommended first calls' implies this is an orientation/onboarding entry point, and the non-goal clause implies it is not a data-fetching tool. However, it never states explicitly when to call this versus siblings like polar_capabilities, polar_agent_manifest, or polar_quickstart, which look like competing orientation tools.

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