Polar Wellness Context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that output is normalized into a 'wellness_context shape', which is useful context, but says nothing about how the optional inputs (soreness, injury_flags, notes) influence results or what happens when no Polar data exists for the window.

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 sentence with the verb and data sources front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the dense jargon ('wellness_context shape') trades clarity for brevity.

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. However, for a six-parameter normalization tool with only 33% schema coverage, the description leaves the majority of inputs undocumented and gives no sense of how the normalized output is assembled, which is a substantial completeness gap.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate for the gaps but does not. Only 'days' and 'timezone' are documented in the schema; the description never explains what 'notes', 'soreness', 'injury_flags', or 'response_format' control, leaving four of six parameters semantically opaque.

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 uses a specific verb-and-resource construction ('Normalize Polar Nightly Recharge, sleep and training load') and names the output artifact ('shared wellness_context shape'). This distinguishes it from the sibling list_* tools, which enumerate raw data rather than transforming it. It falls short of 5 only because 'recommendation engines' is a vague downstream reference.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative. An agent cannot tell from the description alone whether this tool should be called instead of polar_daily_summary, polar_weekly_summary, or the raw polar_list_nightly_recharge / polar_list_sleeps tools. Usage is only weakly implied by 'for recommendation engines'.

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