Compare Savvly vs Alternative Product

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive traits. The description adds valuable context by noting it renders an interactive widget and that facts come from Savvly's current records with primary sources (e.g., SEC filings) — beyond what annotations alone provide. No contradiction found.

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?

Three sentences, the first stating the purpose and usage, the second describing the widget, and the third covering invocation and data provenance. Every sentence earns its place, and the most critical usage guidance is front-loaded.

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 tool with a single fully-documented parameter, annotations covering safety, and an output schema present, the description supplies all needed context: what it does, when to use it, how to call it, and what the response includes (widget + sources). Nothing critical 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?

The schema description covers the 'alternative' parameter at 100% with enum values and a detailed note about avoiding a generic 'annuity'. The tool description reiterates the pass 'all' behavior but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. With high coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('structured comparison between Savvly and another retirement product type') and enumerates the exact alternatives it handles (annuities, target-date funds, managed-payout funds). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_savvly_product_info (single product info) and projection tools.

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: 'use it whenever the user compares Savvly to annuities... or asks how Savvly stacks up.' It also instructs how to invoke it ('Pass 'all' for the full matrix, or a specific product type'), leaving no ambiguity about selection.

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