Get Savvly Product Info

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: it renders an interactive product overview card, pulls facts from Savvly's current records, and includes primary sources such as SEC filings. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 long and efficiently front-loads purpose and usage in the first sentence, then parameter guidance, then output behavior. Every sentence adds distinct information with no redundant filler, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 a single optional parameter, an output schema, and read-only annotations, this description is complete enough for correct invocation. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, the effect of the parameter, the interactive card behavior, and the source/credibility of the facts. There are no material gaps that would prevent an agent from selecting and calling it properly.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single `section` parameter, including the enum, default, and explanation that it focuses the text portion. The tool description merely restates 'Pass `section` to focus the answer (default 'all')' without adding new meaning, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline for well-covered schemas.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get complete product information about Savvly'. It then enumerates concrete user intents ('what Savvly is, how it works, its expenses, eligibility, or payouts') which clearly distinguishes this information-retrieval tool from the projection and comparison siblings in its context.

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 triggers for use: 'use it whenever the user asks what Savvly is, how it works, its expenses, eligibility, or payouts, or wants an overview.' This is clear and actionable. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of the full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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