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

Goes well beyond the read-only annotations by disclosing what data is missing, how the stated block differs from totals.net, that no interest or payoff date is calculated, and that stated and connected loans may duplicate each other. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs before quoting a net figure.

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 limitations are front-loaded before any numeric discussion, which is the right structure for this tool. The description is dense and somewhat repetitive around the stated-loan versus connected-loan overlap, but almost every sentence carries useful behavioral or usage 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description supplies the missing contextual caveats: data omissions, stated-block semantics, duplication risk, and how to avoid double-counting. No essential calling or interpretation guidance is absent.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and nothing in the description creates confusion about inputs.

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?

Identifies the tool as a balance sheet built from connected-account balances and clearly scopes it to connected accounts only. The stated-block caveat helps separate it from a simple connected-liability view, but it does not explicitly name a sibling tool for alternative use cases.

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?

Gives concrete usage instructions: lead with limitations, do not present the net figure as net worth, do not add stated loans to connected liabilities, count each loan once, and ask the household when a stated loan may overlap with a connected one. It lacks explicit when-to-use guidance versus siblings like account_summary or loan_summary, but the operational guidance is strong.

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