Get Savvly Product Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it renders an interactive product overview card, uses Savvly's current records, and includes primary sources like SEC filings. This enriches the agent's understanding 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 concise (two sentences) yet covers purpose, usage, parameter hint, and expected output. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or extraneous information. It is well-structured and front-loaded with critical information.

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 the low complexity (single optional parameter, simple output), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, what the parameter controls, and what the user can expect (interactive card, primary sources). The presence of an output schema does not require additional explanation here.

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%, and the description merely restates that the 'section' parameter focuses the answer with default 'all.' No additional semantic meaning or usage details are added beyond what the schema provides. Therefore, the description neither enhances nor detracts from parameter understanding.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving complete product information about Savvly, specifying the exact resource. It distinguishes from siblings by listing example queries (what Savvly is, how it works, fees, eligibility, payouts) that are not covered by more specific sibling tools like check_savvly_eligibility or project_savvly_lumpsum.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'use it whenever the user asks what Savvly is, how it works, its fees, eligibility, or payouts, or wants an overview.' This effectively tells the agent when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or directly reference alternative sibling tools, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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