Exchange Polar OAuth Code

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

Discloses key behavioral traits: tokens are stored locally with 0600 permissions and never returned. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false consistent with write operation; no contradiction. However, lacks details on error handling or token lifetime.

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?

Single, efficient sentence conveying the main purpose and notable behavior (permissions, non-return of tokens). No fluff.

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?

Adequately covers the core operation, but lacks mention of the prerequisite step (needs a valid authorization code from polar_get_auth_url) and potential errors. Output schema exists so return values may be documented externally.

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 covers the 'code' parameter well (accepts code or redirect URL), but the 'response_format' parameter has no description and appears only in enum/default. The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond schema, and schema coverage is only 50%.

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 exchanges an OAuth code for tokens, which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like polar_get_auth_url that generate the auth URL.

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?

Implied usage as the second step after obtaining an OAuth code, but no explicit mention of prerequisites (e.g., 'use after polar_get_auth_url') or conditions when not to use this tool.

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