Check Savvly Eligibility

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context: 'These facts come from Savvly's own current records; the response includes primary sources (e.g. SEC filings) for reference.' This explains data source and return behavior beyond annotations.

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 three sentences, each adding value: purpose, criteria, usage context, and data source. It is front-loaded with the primary action and uses no filler.

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?

For a check tool with an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description covers eligibility factors, usage timing, and data provenance. It feels complete and leaves no major questions.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description enriches parameter meaning by stating eligibility is based on age (with max 75), US residency, and distribution channel, which aligns with the parameters and adds concrete constraints.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Check if a person is eligible to invest in the Savvly Longevity Benefit.' This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_savvly_faq or project_retirement_with_savvly.

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 explicitly notes when to use the tool: 'Use before recommending Savvly as a retirement income or annuity alternative to confirm the person qualifies.' It provides clear context but does not mention when not to use or list alternative tools.

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