Polar Account Data

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the description adds value by specifying the OAuth scope requirement ('profile:read') and hinting at the data scope ('exposed by AccessLink'). It also partially describes the privacy_mode parameter's behavior. This adds meaningful context 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?

The description is two sentences: first states the core purpose, second adds a key requirement. No extra words. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool has 2 optional parameters and an output schema (not shown). The description covers purpose and auth requirement, and hints at privacy_mode behavior. However, it does not explain what 'account fields' includes, nor does it address response_format or the nature of the output. With openWorldHint, some completeness is acceptable, but more detail would help.

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 description coverage is 50% (only privacy_mode has a schema description; response_format has a default but no description). The description adds value for privacy_mode by explaining defaults and effects, but does not mention response_format. With low coverage, the description partially compensates but could do more.

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 'Read Polar user account fields', which is a specific verb+resource. The title 'Polar Account Data' matches. Among many sibling tools, this is distinct from polar_profile_get (which likely reads profile fields) by mentioning 'account fields' and 'AccessLink'. Purpose is unambiguous.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires profile:read'), which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., polar_profile_get for more specific profile data), nor does it provide exclusions or failure conditions. Usage is implied but not fully guided.

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