compare_switch_savings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that a comparison is made, but does not disclose whether the top APY is fetched live, how the comparison result is expressed, whether there are side effects, or what failure modes exist. This is a notable gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what the tool returns or how the comparison is presented. It does neither. Given the presence of sibling rate-lookup tools, an agent may not know whether this returns a difference, a recommendation, or a boolean, leaving an important gap.

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%, so the description must add parameter meaning. It does map currentApy to 'user's current APY' and balance to 'for a balance', which helps, but it does not explain units, interpretation, or how balance affects the comparison beyond that hint.

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 a specific operation (compare) and the resources involved (user's current APY vs SwitchWize's top savings APY). It is distinguishable from the sibling get_* tools because this is a comparison, not a simple rate lookup, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 implies when to use the tool (when comparing a user's APY to the top rate) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it relates to sibling tools like get_top_rates or get_top_hysa_rates. There are no stated prerequisites or alternatives.

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