sc_savings_plans_config

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only,' which is a key behavioral trait for an AI agent deciding whether to call safely. It does not disclose any side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens if the isin is invalid. The description adds 'Read-only' value but is sparse on other behavioral details.

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 two short sentences—no wasted text. The first sentence defines the action, the second clarifies read-only behavior and intended timing. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown in detail), so return value explanation is partially covered there. However, the description does not explain what 'ex-ante fee disclosure' means or what happens if isin is missing or invalid. Given the complexity (2 params, output schema exists), the description is minimally complete but lacks detail on error conditions or default behavior for portfolio_id.

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 0%, meaning the description must compensate for the two parameters (isin, portfolio_id). The description does not mention either parameter by name, but it implies isin via 'for a security.' portfolio_id (optional, default null) is not addressed at all. Given 0 coverage, the description should provide more param context, but the tool is simple enough that the schema itself (with types and required flag) does some work. I credit it partially for implying isin's role, leading to 4.

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 it gets 'valid savings-plan configuration and ex-ante fee disclosure' for a security, which is a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings—none of the sibling tools (e.g., sc_watchlist, sc_transactions) mention savings plans, so this tool is uniquely positioned.

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 says 'use before deciding on a savings plan,' giving clear timing context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternative tools for savings plan actions (like creating or modifying plans), which might exist outside the sibling list. Usage guidance is implied but lacks exclusion criteria.

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