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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, but the description adds behavioral context beyond that: it renders an interactive card, sources facts from Savvly's records, and includes primary sources like SEC filings. This helps the agent set user expectations and understand data provenance.

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 moderately long but well-structured: it leads with the core purpose, then usage guidance, then parameter behavior, then data source. It avoids waste but repeats the 'pass section' instruction already in the schema. Still, it earns its sentences with useful context.

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 a single optional parameter, a rich description, and an existing output schema (so return format need not be spelled out), the description covers the essentials: what the tool does, when to use it, how to focus responses, and what data sources are referenced. No critical information is missing.

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 100% with a detailed description of the `section` parameter (enum, default, explanation). The tool description adds only a minor note about focusing the answer, which is already implied in the schema. No significant additional semantics beyond the schema.

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 states a clear, specific purpose: 'Get complete product information about Savvly' and lists concrete user intents (what Savvly is, how it works, expenses, eligibility, payouts, overview). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_savvly_eligibility or get_savvly_faq, which have narrower scopes.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('whenever the user asks what Savvly is, how it works... or wants an overview'), giving clear positive triggers. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternative tools, though the triggers are specific enough to avoid major confusion.

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