setFixedTermAutoInvest

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the essential behavior (toggling auto-reinvestment) and a rate limit. However, it lacks details on outcomes (e.g., success/failure responses), error handling when the product doesn't support auto-reinvestment, or other side effects. The transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise: a single-line action summary, a one-line note, and a rate limit. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the core information (purpose, precondition, rate limit). However, it lacks parameter descriptions, return value expectations, and error scenarios. For a state-changing tool, more completeness would be beneficial, but the description covers the essentials.

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 0%, and the description adds no explanations for the four parameters (productId, category, positionId, status). The parameter names and enums are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the missing schema details, especially the meaning of the category and status enums.

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 tool's action: 'Enable or disable auto-reinvestment for a fixed term position.' The verb is specific (enable/disable) and the resource is well-defined (auto-reinvestment for a fixed term position). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on auto-reinvestment toggling.

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 a condition for usage: 'Only applicable for FundPool products that support auto-reinvestment.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or offer alternatives for cases where the condition is not met. The usage context is implied but not fully elaborated.

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