Polar Weekly Training Review

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'non-medical' disclaimer and lists the aggregation contents, which is useful context, but says nothing about latency, rate limits, or how the scorecard is computed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope and content list are delivered immediately and the read-only/non-medical caveat is appended economically.

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 not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The content list plus the non-medical caveat are adequate for calling the tool, though routing relative to polar_daily_summary is absent.

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 75%: days, timezone and compare_days are documented in the schema, while response_format has an enum but no description. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 for near-complete schema coverage applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Build a weekly Polar scorecard') and enumerates the content it aggregates (sleep, activity, Nightly Recharge, training load, bottlenecks, actions). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely related sibling polar_daily_summary, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no condition for choosing this over polar_daily_summary or polar_wellness_context, and no stated prerequisites. The only hint is the implicit 'weekly' scope in the name and description.

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