Polar Weekly Training Review

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds 'Read-only and non-medical', which aligns with annotations without contradiction, but adds limited additional context beyond what annotations provide.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and key output components without any extraneous words.

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?

With an output schema available, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and output components. It is complete enough for a summary tool, though it could briefly note the time range context.

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 coverage is high (all four parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter meaning beyond schema; it lists output components but not parameter details.

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 'build' and the resource 'weekly Polar scorecard', listing components (sleep, activity, Nightly Recharge, etc.) and distinguishing from sibling tools like polar_daily_summary by specifying the weekly scope.

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 implies use for weekly review but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., polar_daily_summary for daily needs). No exclusion criteria or alternative suggestions are provided.

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