Get Savvly FAQ

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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: facts come from Savvly's own current records and the response includes primary sources (e.g. SEC filings) for reference. This informs the agent about data provenance and response content without contradicting the 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 with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then gives usage guidance, names the alternative, and finishes with data provenance. Every sentence 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 is simple: one optional parameter, fully documented in the schema, with a rich output schema available. The description covers what the tool does, when to use it, how it relates to a sibling, and the nature of the data source. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so the single `section` parameter is fully documented in the schema with enum values, a default, and a description. The tool description does not add parameter-specific syntax or format details, but it does not need to; the schema carries the full burden. Baseline 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 clearly states the verb and resource: it gets answers to frequently asked questions about Savvly. It also differentiates itself from the sibling tool `search_savvly_content` by calling itself a convenience view scoped to factual FAQ, so an agent can tell them apart immediately.

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: when the user has specific questions about how Savvly works, expenses, withdrawals, or regulatory status. It also names the alternative and the condition that selects it: for richer audience-specific Q&As, use `search_savvly_content` instead. Nothing is left to inference.

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