get_high_interest_products

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that data is community-verified and from a public database, and that results include rates and conditions. However, it does not describe return format, sorting, or whether the data updates automatically, leaving some behavioral aspects ambiguous.

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 a single, focused sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose, scope, and data source. Every word adds value and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 tool's low complexity and full schema coverage, the description covers the main aspects: geography, product types, and data provenance. It doesn't mention default behavior when no filters are applied, but that is implicit in the schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a simple list endpoint without an output schema.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (country and product_type), each with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter detail, so it neither compensates nor detracts from the schema. 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 tool lists high-interest savings accounts, fixed deposits, and treasury products across specific countries (Singapore, India, USA), with rates and conditions. The verb 'List' is specific and the resource is well-defined, distinguishing it from siblings like calculate_fire_number or find_networth_percentile.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when needing current high-interest product rates across the mentioned countries. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous given the sibling tools serve different purposes.

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