Polar Nightly Recharge

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 by stating the required auth scope and a disclaimer ('Not medical advice'). No contradictions with 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 concise: two sentences covering purpose, scope requirement, and disclaimer. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Given the 8 parameters and optional features like privacy_mode and response_format, the description is minimal. However, the presence of an output schema and high schema coverage reduce the need for extensive description. It could explain what Nightly Recharge is or how pagination works, but this is adequately covered by the schema.

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?

With 88% schema description coverage, the schema already thoroughly documents parameters. The description adds minimal extra value beyond stating 'in a date range', which is implied by the 'after' and 'before' parameters.

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 lists Nightly Recharge results with a date range, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling list tools like polar_list_activity or polar_list_sleeps, missing an opportunity to differentiate.

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 the required scope 'nightly_recharge:read', which provides some usage guidance. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or when not to use it.

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