Polar Skin Contacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds the date range constraint and required scope, but does not elaborate on behavior like pagination limits or rate limiting. No contradiction 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 a single sentence, very concise with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose. However, it could be slightly expanded to include more context without losing conciseness.

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 tool has 8 parameters, detailed annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but misses details about pagination (all_pages, max_pages), privacy modes, and response format. The schema compensates, but the description could be more informative.

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 88%, with most parameters having descriptive explanations. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'list', resource 'skin contact periods', and scope 'in a date range'. It further specifies the required OAuth scope 'skin_contact:read'. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like polar_list_activity or polar_list_sleeps by the specific resource.

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 but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to choose skin contacts over other list tools). It lacks 'when-not-to-use' statements.

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