Get Polar OAuth URL

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the token-absence precondition, which is real behavioral context, but it omits the OAuth flow relationship (that the returned URL leads to a code exchanged via polar_exchange_code) and any auth/permission notes.

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 short sentences with the action stated first and the usage condition second. Every sentence earns its place with zero filler or 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, as the entry point of a multi-step OAuth flow, the description should mention the follow-up step (exchange code) so the agent understands the sequence; that linkage is missing.

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 67% — state and scopes are documented in the schema while response_format is not. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, leaving the partial coverage gap unaddressed, so it sits at the adequate baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Generate a Polar OAuth authorization URL." This clearly identifies the action and object, so an agent can tell it apart from data-fetching siblings like polar_list_sleeps. It does not, however, name or differentiate itself from the closely related sibling polar_exchange_code.

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?

"Use this first when no local token exists" gives an explicit trigger condition and ordering ('first'), which is genuinely useful routing guidance. It stops short of naming the alternative (polar_exchange_code) or stating when not to use it, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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