Antevo Wealth

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile: readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds the effect-type scoping dimension. It does not disclose behavior like default handling when effect_type is null or how limit applies, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden for this dimension.

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 phrase with no filler, and the core subject is front-loaded. It is almost too terse, but every word contributes meaning, so it earns a high conciseness score despite being under-specified.

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?

While annotations and the output schema cover safety and return structure, the description leaves critical invocation details unresolved, especially the meaning of effect_type and the behavior of limit. For a tool with zero schema description coverage, this is a meaningful 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%, and the description only hints that effect_type is relevant to the correlation grouping; it does not define valid values or behavior. The limit parameter is not addressed at all, leaving an agent without enough information to invoke the tool confidently.

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 identifies a specific resource—cross-asset correlations—and this distinguishes it from the many other get_* siblings. However, it is a noun phrase rather than a full statement of capability, and 'effect type' is left undefined, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of intended scenarios, exclusions, or related tools. The phrase 'cross-asset correlations' weakly implies a use case, but the description does not actively help an agent choose between this and similar data-retrieval tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the 'geopolitical drilldown' scope but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as data freshness, output shape, or any limitations beyond what annotations imply.

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, tightly scoped sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose and key input format. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool has a small parameter set, annotations cover read-only behavior, and an output schema exists, so a long description is not required. However, the absence of any usage guidance and the unaddressed days_back parameter leave moderate gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke this tool.

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 only clarifies the iso2 parameter by specifying 'ISO-2'. The days_back parameter is not explained, though its name and default value (30) offer some self-evident meaning. Partial compensation is present but not complete.

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 'Per-country geopolitical drilldown (ISO-2)' is concise and specific: it names the resource (country), the scope (per-country), and a distinguishing attribute (geopolitical, ISO-2). It clearly stands apart from sibling briefs like get_market_brief, get_executive_brief, and get_today_brief.

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 a country-level geopolitical overview is needed, and the ISO-2 aspect signals input requirements. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when this tool should not be used, leaving some inference to the agent.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that the response is metadata rather than document content, but it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as not-found handling or permission requirements.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. However, its brevity limits the amount of information conveyed; it is concise but not rich.

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 output schema and rich annotations, the basic read-only nature is covered, but the description omits usage context, the role of household_id, and how this relates to list_documents. For a simple lookup with two required IDs, the description is minimal and leaves notable gaps.

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 does not explain either parameter. It implies doc_id selects the document, but household_id remains unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'Metadata for one document' clearly indicates the tool returns metadata for a single document, and the title reinforces the verb. It distinguishes from list_documents by specifying 'one' rather than a collection, though it does not explicitly name the sibling.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus list_documents or other get_* tools. There are no exclusions or alternative suggestions, so an agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a modest behavioral clarification that this is an aggregate snapshot across portfolios (point-in-time read), but discloses nothing further such as data freshness, scope limits, or that no parameters are required.

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 sentence with zero filler, and the key scope qualifier ('across the household's portfolios') is front-loaded. It earns its place, though it could have used one more sentence to add sibling differentiation without becoming verbose.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. The notable gap is the lack of guidance for choosing it over get_portfolio_drift, which an agent would likely need given the overlapping names.

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 there is no property description for household_id. The description's phrase 'household's portfolios' does imply that household_id identifies the household scope, which is some compensation, but it doesn't explain the format, optionality, or behavior when omitted.

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 states a specific action (obtaining a drift snapshot) and a specific resource scope ('across the household's portfolios'), which clearly distinguishes it from per-portfolio siblings like get_portfolio_drift. However, it doesn't explicitly name the alternative or state the distinction, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_portfolio_drift or get_portfolio_summary. The description gives no context about use cases, exclusions, or which sibling to prefer under what conditions.

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

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

No contradiction with annotations; readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint already cover the safety profile. The description adds that this returns a detailed single household entity, but does not disclose behavior for invalid IDs, missing data, or related entities. With annotations present, it is adequate but minimal.

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 and front-loaded with the essential idea: one household entity in detail. No words are wasted, though it could be slightly more informative without harming clarity.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter read operation with an output schema and safety annotations, so the definition is nearly sufficient. However, it leaves ambiguity about what a 'household entity' is and whether entity_id comes from list_households, list_family, or another source. An agent can probably call it correctly but with some uncertainty.

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 does not define entity_id's format, origin, or meaning beyond 'household entity.' Since the schema provides no parameter documentation, the description should compensate but does not.

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 names the resource ('one household entity') and indicates the level of detail ('in detail'), while the title supplies the verb 'Get'. The function is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling get_* tools beyond the resource name.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_households, list_family, or other get_* tools. There is no when-to-use context, no exclusion, and no mention of where entity_id should come from.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful detail about the returned data scope (P/E, EV/EBITDA, FCF yield, ROIC, peers), but it does not disclose behavior around refresh, data history, or limitations. This is adequate given the annotation coverage.

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 scannable sentence with a specific list of valuation metrics and data categories. It is concise and front-loaded, with no filler, though the opening 'Equity fundamentals' largely restates the tool name.

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 six parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description is too sparse to fully support correct invocation. The output schema and annotations help, but the description does not explain required inputs, optional parameter behavior, or how this relates to other market-data tools. It is adequate for selection but incomplete for confident use.

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 compensate, but it only mentions 'peers' as a concept. The meanings and formats of identifier, identifier_type, frequency, year_history, and force_refresh are not explained anywhere in the description. This leaves the agent guessing on multiple parameters.

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 identifies the resource (equity fundamentals) and lists concrete content categories: financials, growth, margins, valuation metrics, and peers. It is clear enough for an agent to know what kind of data this tool provides, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from market-data siblings like get_market_data or get_recent_results.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The content list implies it is for fundamental analysis, but there is no explicit statement of appropriate context, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds content context by naming the brief's sections, which is useful, but it does not discuss behavior like freshness, coverage, or any limitations beyond what the annotations already convey.

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 sentence that is short and front-loaded with the core idea. The content list after the em dash is useful. It is concise without being padded, though the missing parameter guidance prevents a perfect score.

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 large set of sibling brief tools and one undocumented parameter, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it confidently. The output schema may cover return values, but the meaning of 'scope' and how this brief differs from get_market_brief, get_today_brief, and get_country_brief remain unclear.

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?

There is one parameter, 'scope', with no schema description, no enum, and 0% schema description coverage. The tool description never mentions 'scope' or explains what values are valid (e.g., retail vs. other segments) or how it changes the brief. The default 'retail' is the only hint, and the description adds no meaning beyond that.

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 identifies the resource as an 'executive editorial brief' and lists what it contains (regime, themes, risks, market snapshot), which is clear enough to understand the tool's basic function. It does not explicitly contrast it with sibling brief tools like get_market_brief or get_today_brief, but the 'executive' qualifier gives some differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_market_brief, get_country_brief, or get_today_brief. The phrase 'executive editorial brief' implies a high-level audience, but no selection criteria, exclusions, or situational context are provided.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it is a 'longer-form read for today,' characterizing content type and time scope, but it does not describe rendering, length, or update cadence. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence with no filler, and the key qualifiers 'longer-form' and 'today' are placed upfront. It could add a sibling-routing clause, but as a bare description it is not verbose or padded.

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 with an output schema and safe annotations, the description only needs to do a little, and 'longer-form read for today' covers timing and format. However, with 39 siblings including get_today_brief and get_executive_brief, an explicit note on when to choose this over those tools would materially improve completeness.

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 takes zero parameters, so the description does not need to define argument semantics. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the 'for today' phrasing helps explain why no input is required.

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 identifies the output as a 'longer-form read' for 'today' and connects to the 'Executive Desk' title, so an agent knows roughly what it returns. But it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb-plus-resource statement, and it does not clearly distinguish itself from get_today_brief or get_executive_brief except through the word 'longer-form'.

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 'for today' and 'longer-form' wording implies this is the in-depth daily narrative rather than a brief or data query, which gives some context for when to use it. It never names alternatives or states when not to use it, leaving sibling selection mostly to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds return-scope context but no extra behavioral traits such as error handling, not-found behavior, or authorization requirements, so it adds limited value beyond annotations.

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 sentence with no filler, and the key scope fact is front-loaded. Every word contributes meaning.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with annotations and an output schema present, this description is sufficient. An agent can infer what the tool returns and the required input is evident from the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the only parameter facility_id is documented only as a string. The description does not explain where the ID comes from, its expected format, or its relationship to list_facilities, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 'One credit facility in full', giving a specific verb/resource pair and scope. The added detail 'including covenant headroom and pledged collateral' makes clear this returns a complete single record, distinguishing it from list-style siblings like list_facilities.

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 usage: fetch a single credit facility by ID rather than listing facilities. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool, what conditions apply, or how it differs from alternatives, so usage is only implied.

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

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

The annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the look-back window and the notion of layered geopolitical intelligence, which is modest useful context, but it does not describe output behavior, data source, or filtering semantics.

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 compact clause with no filler and front-loads the core concept. A small deduction is warranted because it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit imperative retrieval statement.

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 read-only annotations, no required parameters, and an output schema present, the description provides a minimal but usable global scope and time-window concept. However, the complete lack of parameter guidance and usage context makes it only barely adequate for confident non-default invocations.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It only hints at 'layers' and a 'look-back window', which loosely maps to layers and days_back, but it leaves region, country, severity, and value formats completely unexplained.

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 identifies the resource as global geopolitical intelligence layers over a look-back window, and the tool name supplies the 'get' verb. It is reasonably distinct from the many financial and portfolio siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with any 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The description does not mention use cases, exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives, so an agent must infer its applicability entirely from the phrase 'geopolitical intelligence layers'.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context. The canonical/cash-inclusive/FX-converted clause provides valuable methodology context beyond the structured fields.

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?

A single concise sentence with no filler; the core definition is front-loaded and each qualifier adds meaning. This is appropriately sized for a simple read tool.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly complete for a simple one-parameter read operation. The main remaining gap is parameter selection behavior, which is minor given the self-explanatory parameter name.

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 does not mention household_id or clarify how it is used, whether it is required, or what the default empty string means. The parameter name is obvious, but the description adds no meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 states the return value as household AUM and adds definitional qualifiers — canonical, cash-inclusive, FX-converted — that make the metric precise and distinguish it from sibling tools such as get_net_worth or get_portfolio_summary. Even without an explicit verb, the title supplies 'get' and the resource is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given about when to prefer this tool over siblings or what context implies canonical AUM. The qualifiers hint at the intended meaning, but there are no explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds that the brief is time-bound to 'today' and may be personalised, which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not clarify what 'personalised when available' means or how output may vary, so it adds moderate but not extensive behavioral insight.

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 sentence with the core resource, 'Today's market brief,' placed up front. The 'what matters now' pulse phrase is somewhat vague but brief, and the personalization caveat adds useful information. It is efficient, though not maximally precise.

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 is mostly sufficient. The main gap is the lack of differentiation from similarly named sibling briefs, which could lead an agent to select the wrong tool. The vague personalization note also leaves some ambiguity about what the returned brief will contain.

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 accepts zero parameters and schema description coverage is effectively 100%, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation burden exists. An output schema is also present, so return-value structure is handled outside the description.

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 the resource: a brief focused on today's market, described as the 'what matters now' pulse. It is reasonably distinct from data-oriented tools like get_market_data and from briefs with a different scope like get_executive_brief or get_country_brief. However, it does not differentiate itself from the similarly named get_today_brief, so it falls short of a 5.

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 no explicit when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. With siblings like get_today_brief, get_executive_brief, and get_country_brief, an agent cannot determine when this brief should be preferred. The 'personalised when available' note is a behavioral hint, not a selection criterion.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about watchlist scope and that signals are only present 'where available,' setting expectations about variable availability, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits or return format variations.

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 11-word sentence that states the core scope and a key condition. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant repetition of the title.

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 tool with an output schema and strong annotations, this description is largely sufficient: it identifies the data source (watchlist) and a variable feature (signals). It could be slightly more explicit about what counts as 'market data' (e.g., prices, performance, news), but the ambiguity is minor given the output schema exists.

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 is empty and there are zero parameters, so the description has no semantic burden to carry. Per baseline, this is a 4; the description adds no need for parameter clarification.

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 returns market data for the user's watchlist and mentions signals as an optional component, which differentiates it from siblings like get_signals_recent or get_market_brief. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve,' but the scope is specific and understandable.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_market_brief, get_signals_recent, or get_equity_fundamentals. It only implies the watchlist scope, without any explicit when-to-use or exclusions.

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

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses meaningful computation details: it spans total estate gross including AUM, cash and real assets, subtracts liabilities, and is FX-converted. This clarifies scope and conversion behavior that annotations do not capture.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core concept and packs the essential formula into minimal words. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 low complexity, the presence of an output schema, and annotations covering read-only/idempotent behavior, the description is largely sufficient. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning household_id or the currency base for the FX conversion, but nothing critical is missing for basic invocation.

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 does not explain household_id at all. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description must compensate for the missing schema documentation and fails to clarify how household_id affects the net-worth calculation or whether it defaults to something meaningful.

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 defines net worth as 'total estate gross (AUM incl. cash + real assets) minus liabilities, FX-converted,' which identifies the computed resource and distinguishes it from asset-only tools like get_household_aum. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'calculates,' but the tool name and title supply the operation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_household_aum, get_portfolio_summary, or list_households. It implies the tool is for net-worth calculations but does not state alternatives, exclusions, or contextual triggers.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the compliance/policy scope but does not disclose filtering behavior, scope of results, or any other operational details; this is acceptable for a simple read-only tool.

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 short sentence with no filler or repetition. It is concise and front-loaded, but it is so terse that it sacrifices some explanatory value.

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 an output schema present and a single optional parameter, the tool is relatively simple. However, the lack of parameter guidance and no usage differentiation from related alert/risk tools leaves the definition only minimally viable.

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 does not mention household_id at all. The parameter name is self-explanatory as an identifier, but the description does not clarify whether it filters breaches, whether an empty default means all households, or how it affects results.

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 names a specific resource and scope: 'Open compliance/policy breaches.' Although it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list,' the noun phrase combined with the tool name makes the operation clear, and no sibling tool references breaches, so it is distinguishable.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_risk_dashboard, get_unread_alerts, or get_signals_recent. The description only states what it returns and does not mention the optional household_id context or exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds semantic context by defining drift as being relative to target allocation, but it discloses no additional behavioral traits such as calculation basis, time period, or output characteristics.

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 concise sentence with no fluff or repetition. It front-loads the core concept immediately. Minor deduction because it is a sentence fragment and could have used the space to add parameter or usage context without becoming verbose.

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 simple read-only tool with an output schema and strong safety annotations, the description is minimally viable. However, it leaves required parameters undocumented and does not resolve ambiguity with get_drift_snapshot, so an agent may still need external context to call it confidently.

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 does not explain household_id or portfolio_id. The word 'portfolio' hints at portfolio_id's role, but the description does not clarify the relationship between the two required parameters or their formats. With low schema coverage, the description needed to compensate and did not.

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 the resource (portfolio) and the specific metric (drift versus target allocation), which separates it from positions/risk/summary. However, it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb+resource statement, and it does not distinguish itself from the closely named sibling get_drift_snapshot.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. In particular, the sibling get_drift_snapshot likely overlaps, but the description provides no differentiation or exclusion criteria. The use case is only implied by the name and noun phrase.

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

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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that results are paginated and sorted by market value, which is useful, but it does not explain cursor semantics, default pagination behavior, or how an empty household_id is handled.

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 sentence with no filler, and the most important facts are front-loaded. It is concise but slightly too compressed to cover parameter semantics or usage boundaries.

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 simple read-only list tool with an output schema and safety annotations, a short description can be adequate. However, with three optional parameters and many sibling portfolio-related tools, the absence of usage guidance and paramter detail leaves meaningful gaps.

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 little beyond the parameter names themselves. 'Paginated' hints at limit and cursor roles, but the description does not explain expected values, defaults, or the meaning of an empty household_id.

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 names the resource ('positions') and scope ('for a household'), and adds useful distinguishing details: paginated and sorted by market value. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling portfolio tools like get_portfolio_summary or get_portfolio_drift, so the differentiation is left mostly to the resource name.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_portfolio_summary, get_portfolio_risk, or list_accounts. Pagination and household context imply an intended use case, but there are no explicit selection criteria, exclusions, or alternative conditions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the resource name, such as what risk calculations are performed, what time frame is used, or any caveats about the returned metrics.

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 only five words long, with no filler, and the core scope is front-loaded. It is concise to the point of under-specification, but as a structural matter it is efficient and easy to scan.

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?

Basic invocation is supported by the required parameters and output schema, but the description is too thin to disambiguate among several risk-related sibling tools. It does not clarify what distinguishes this tool from get_risk_dashboard, get_portfolio_drift, or get_correlations, leaving the agent to guess at selection and expected contents.

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 needed to clarify the parameters, but it only weakly maps to portfolio_id via 'one portfolio' and says nothing about household_id or how the two IDs relate. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 phrase 'Risk metrics for one portfolio' identifies the resource and indicates single-portfolio scope, but it lacks an explicit verb and does not specify what kind of risk metrics are included. It is not a pure tautology, but it does not clearly distinguish the tool from siblings like get_risk_dashboard or get_portfolio_drift.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_risk_dashboard, get_portfolio_drift, or get_portfolio_summary. The 'one portfolio' phrase implies a per-portfolio use case, but the description offers no exclusions or selection criteria.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds no further behavioral context such as what happens when household_id is omitted or whether the summary aggregates across households, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 front-loaded phrase that immediately identifies the resource and key contents. Every word contributes, with no filler or repetition of structured fields.

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?

Despite the tool being simple and having an output schema and safety annotations, the description is missing parameter meaning and usage differentiation. An agent comparing this to the many get_* siblings has insufficient context to reliably pick or invoke it.

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 never mentions the only parameter, household_id. With no schema description and no description-level explanation, the agent is left to guess the parameter's semantics from its name alone.

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 names a concrete resource and enumerates the exact metrics returned (market value, cost basis, unrealised P&L, allocation by asset class), so an agent can tell this is a portfolio-level summary. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_household_aum or get_portfolio_positions.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many portfolio/household siblings, and no mention of how the optional household_id affects results. Usage must be inferred from the name and metric list, which is weak guidance.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'one' and 'in detail,' which gives minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations and does not explain what 'detail' includes or how results are shaped.

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 and front-loaded, with no wasted words. It is short enough to parse quickly, though it borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter, an output schema, and safety-related annotations, the definition is minimally adequate. However, the lack of distinction from sibling tools like get_real_asset_economics leaves some contextual ambiguity for an agent deciding which tool to invoke.

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 has only asset_id with no description, and the tool description does not explain the parameter's format, source, or role beyond implying it identifies a real asset. With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 identifies the resource ('real asset') and the granularity ('one'), making it clear this tool fetches a single real asset's details. This distinguishes it from list_real_assets, but it does not clearly differentiate it from related singular tools like get_real_asset_economics.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as list_real_assets or get_real_asset_economics. The word 'one' weakly implies a single-record use case, but no alternatives or exclusions are stated.

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

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

Annotations already communicate that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the semantics of what economics includes, but it does not disclose aggregation level, scope of an empty household_id, or any other behavioral traits beyond the enumerated output fields.

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 compact sentence with the core content front-loaded via an em-dash. It contains no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

The output schema covers return details and the annotations cover safety, so the description is adequate for a simple read-only tool. However, it lacks important context about when to call it, how the optional household_id behaves, and how it relates to sibling tools like get_real_asset. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 makes no mention of household_id. The agent must rely on the parameter name alone to infer it selects a household, and there is no guidance about the default empty string or whether it is optional. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 defines the tool's resource as 'real-asset economics' and lists the specific computed fields: income, costs, net cashflow, and net yield. This makes the purpose reasonably clear and distinguishes it from related tools like get_real_asset, though it lacks an explicit verb and direct sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_real_asset, get_household_aum, or get_net_worth. There is also no explanation of how the optional household_id parameter affects the result or what an empty value means.

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

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds a time-window behavior ('look-back window'), but does not disclose ordering, pagination, or event semantics. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

One sentence, no filler, key fact front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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?

Low complexity (2 optional params, no nested objects), rich annotations, and an output schema reduce the burden on the description. The sentence provides enough orientation for an agent to invoke it; the main gap is the missing guidance on when to choose it over siblings.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries most of the burden. 'Look-back window' gives meaning to days_back, but limit is not explained, and the string/number format is not addressed. The property names themselves provide some help, but the description only partially compensates.

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 uses a specific verb ('get') and identifies a concrete resource: 'auction-realised and list-price events over a look-back window.' This is much clearer than the generic title, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like get_signals_recent or get_market_data.

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 the tool is for retrieving recent price/event history over a configurable window, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over similar get_* siblings or what alternatives exist. There are no exclusions or use-case scenarios.

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

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

The annotations already cover the key behavioral traits by declaring readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description does not contradict these annotations and adds context about the dashboard's metric content, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral details such as snapshot timing or data freshness.

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, front-loaded sentence that names the resource and lists the most relevant metrics with no wasted words. It is highly scannable and adds value beyond the title.

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 tool with one optional parameter, read-only annotations, and an output schema, the description is minimally viable. The main gaps are the lack of sibling differentiation and the weak household_id explanation, which prevent the definition from being fully self-sufficient.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for the undocumented household_id parameter. The word 'Household' gives a weak semantic clue, but it does not explain how household_id is used, that it is optional, or what an empty value means.

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 identifies the resource as a household risk dashboard and names specific risk metrics it contains: volatility, VaR, concentration, and drawdown. This is clear about what the tool provides, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the closely related get_portfolio_risk sibling.

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?

No explicit usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus get_portfolio_risk, get_portfolio_positions, or get_drift_snapshot, leaving the selection logic entirely to the agent's inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds scoping context (alt-asset, look-back window) but does not disclose ordering, pagination, or data freshness, which would be useful for interpreting 'recent'.

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?

A single sentence with no filler; the core resource, scope, and key parameter are front-loaded. Every word contributes meaning.

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 read-only, idempotent two-parameter tool with an output schema available, the description is mostly sufficient. The only notable gap is the unstated semantics of limit, which is a minor omission given its conventional meaning and default value.

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 carries the burden for both parameters. It explicitly explains days_back as the look-back window, but does not explain limit's meaning (e.g., maximum number of signals returned), leaving a significant semantic gap.

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?

Description uses specific verb+resource: 'Recent alt-asset trade signals' with a look-back window. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_recent_results or get_unread_alerts, which target different data.

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 phrase 'recent alt-asset trade signals' implies the intended use case, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from the name and sibling list.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal context about the household scope and daily/timely nature, but does not disclose any additional behavior such as whether results are cached, time-sensitive, or dependent on user context.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence that quickly conveys the core resource. It is concise, but the phrase 'what matters today' is somewhat filler and does not add concrete detail.

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?

Although output schema and annotations exist, the description still lacks essential usage context: when this tool is the right choice, what household_id means, and how it relates to other briefing tools. For a tool with an optional parameter and no schema description coverage, the description should compensate—and it does not.

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 does not explain household_id or its default value. The word 'household's' hints at the parameter's purpose, but the agent cannot learn whether the parameter is required, how it filters results, or what happens with the empty default.

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 identifies the tool as the household's daily briefing, which is a specific verb+resource combination and distinguishes it from sibling briefs like get_market_brief or get_country_brief. However, 'what matters today' is vague about what content the briefing actually contains, so it is not a fully exact purpose statement.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_executive_brief, get_household_aum, or get_portfolio_summary. It also does not explain whether household_id should be provided or how the tool behaves when it is omitted.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the household scope, such as whether alerts are marked read, how unread is determined, or any ordering/limitations.

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 short phrase with no wasted words and the key scope is front-loaded. It is efficient, though it is more of a fragment than a complete sentence.

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 simple read-only tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is minimally viable. However, it relies on the parameter name and sibling context, leaving the notion of 'unread' and the role of household_id unexplained.

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 compensate for explaining household_id. It only repeats the word 'household' and does not clarify the parameter's format, optionality, default behavior, or how it affects the returned alerts.

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 states the resource ('unread alerts') and scope ('for the household') clearly, so an agent can infer what this tool returns. However, it is a noun phrase rather than a verb phrase, and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar sibling tools like get_signals_recent or get_open_breaches.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of exclusions. The phrase 'for the household' implies a general read context, but it does not help an agent decide between this and other alert- or household-related tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral scope: results are limited to future events that 'touch the book', which clarifies the filtering behavior beyond what annotations provide.

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, compact phrase with no filler. 'Upcoming' conveys the time window, the three event types convey content, and 'touch the book' conveys scope.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover side-effect safety, so the main remaining gap is parameter semantics. The description is nearly sufficient for a simple read-only tool, but without explaining `days` and `household_id`, the agent cannot reliably customize the request.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain `days` or `household_id`. An agent can guess that `days` relates to the horizon and `household_id` selects the book, but the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 specifies the resource: an upcoming calendar of dividends, earnings, and macro events scoped to 'the book'. Although it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit 'gets/returns' statement, it is specific enough to distinguish this from generic market-data or recent-results tools.

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 the use case: when an agent needs upcoming book-relevant dividends, earnings, or macro events. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as get_market_brief, get_recent_results, or get_today_brief, leaving comparison to inference.

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

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

Annotations already communicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. However, the description adds almost no behavioral context beyond 'custody' and 'household,' and does not disclose filtering behavior, defaults, or response semantics.

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 very short, but this is under-specification rather than meaningful conciseness. It is a bare noun phrase with no actionable verb, context, or parameter information, so the brevity does not serve the agent.

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?

Although an output schema exists and annotations cover read-only safety, the description leaves the tool's filter semantics and intended scope highly implicit. An agent cannot determine whether household_id is required, what status values are valid, or what kind of accounts are included beyond the vague 'custody' hint.

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 names neither status nor household_id. The default status value 'OPEN' and the meaning of household_id are left completely unexplained, so the description provides no help in understanding the parameters.

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 'Accounts and custody for the household' identifies a resource domain but uses no verb, so the action must be inferred from the tool name and title. It weakly hints at scope with 'household' and 'custody,' but does not clearly state what the tool does or differentiate it from sibling list tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use list_accounts versus list_households, list_documents, or other sibling tools. It also does not explain how the status or household_id parameters should be used to select between use cases.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the breadth of the surface (portfolio, risk, credit, etc.) but does not describe behavioral details such as whether the result is static or dynamic, or what the returned capability list looks like beyond the output schema.

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 sentence and front-loads the core idea, but the long parenthetical list of domains makes it somewhat dense. Still, each listed domain meaningfully conveys the scope of capabilities, so there is minimal waste.

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 capability-listing tool with an output schema present, the description gives a good high-level inventory of what the connector exposes. It does not explain return structure, but the output schema can carry that burden. The description is adequate for an agent to decide to call this tool for capability discovery.

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 and the schema already covers everything relevant. With no parameters to document, the description does not need to add parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 4 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 that the tool exposes the full capability surface of the Antevo Wealth connector and enumerates the domains covered. This distinguishes it from the many sibling get_* and list_* tools, which retrieve specific data rather than describe the overall connector surface.

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 that this tool is for discovering the breadth of available wealth-related capabilities, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings or when not to use it. An agent can infer that specific data should be fetched with the appropriate get_*/list_* tool, but the guidance is implicit rather than direct.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds that the result is metadata scoped to the household vault, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose behavior such as default ACTIVE status filtering or limit handling.

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 very short and contains no filler, making it easy to scan. However, it is a sentence fragment rather than a complete statement and sacrifices important usage and parameter context for brevity.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description is too sparse for a tool with five optional filtering parameters and no required fields. Key context such as default status filtering, household scoping, and the relationship to get_document is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter information in the description, the five parameters are left to inference from their names and defaults. The description must compensate for the low coverage but does not mention limit, domain, status, category, or household_id.

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 identifies the resource as document metadata and scopes it to the household vault, making the listing intent reasonably clear despite lacking an explicit verb. It goes beyond the title by specifying metadata, which implicitly distinguishes it from get_document.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_document or list_households. The description does not state whether it is for metadata-only listing needs or what conditions should trigger this tool.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the facility-related attributes returned, but it does not disclose defaults, filtering behavior, or how status and household_id affect the result.

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 very short and front-loads the key domain attributes with no filler. However, it is so terse that it reads as a fragment rather than a complete description, slightly limiting its clarity.

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?

Although an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description leaves all three parameters undocumented and gives no usage context. For a tool with 0% schema coverage, this is a meaningful gap that the structured fields do not fill.

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 does not compensate. It never explains the meaning of limit, status, or household_id, and it doesn't clarify that 'limits' in the description refers to facility limits rather than the limit parameter. An agent cannot reliably determine valid parameter values from this definition.

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 title and description indicate a list operation over credit facilities, and the attribute list (balances, limits, rates, maturities, covenants, collateral) clarifies what kind of data is returned. It is distinguishable from get_facility by the list-vs-get naming, though the description itself does not explicitly state the verb.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_facility or list_accounts. The only signal is the implicit list/get distinction from the tool name, which is not enough to help an agent decide confidently.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the vague 'people and structures' scope and does not explain how the optional household_id affects behavior.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core subject, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete. It provides no verb or usage context, so brevity comes at the cost of clarity.

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?

Despite the simple schema and helpful annotations, the description omits the relationship between 'family' and 'household' and any selection semantics for household_id. An agent cannot reliably determine whether to pass the parameter or what the output scope will be, so the description is not complete enough for trustworthy invocation.

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 sole parameter household_id is not mentioned in the description. The phrase 'people and structures' does not clarify what household_id selects, whether it is optional, or what an empty call returns, so the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 identifies the resource as 'Household entities — people and structures,' which conveys what the tool returns, but it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve.' It also does not distinguish this from the sibling tool list_households, so scope remains ambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_households, list_accounts, or get_household_aum. The description is a fragment with no context, condition, alternative, or exclusion, leaving usage entirely to inference.

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

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds some context about the returned content but does not describe any additional behavioral traits such as scoping rules, pagination, or what happens when household_id is omitted. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, compact line that leads with the resource and then lists the relevant data attributes. There is no wasted wording, and every part contributes to understanding what the tool returns.

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?

The presence of an output schema covers return values, and annotations cover safety and idempotency. However, the lack of parameter semantics and any usage context leaves gaps: an agent may not know whether to supply household_id or how to interpret include_inactive. Overall, the description is adequate for a simple list tool but not fully complete.

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 does not mention household_id or include_inactive at all. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, and both are optional, but the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation, leaving the agent without meaningful guidance on how to pass these parameters.

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 the resource as financial goals and enumerates the key data points returned: target vs current funding, progress, gap, and status. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_accounts and list_documents, though the verb 'list' is only supplied by the tool name and title rather than the description itself.

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 the tool is for viewing financial goals and their funding status, which gives some contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or filtering conditions such as household_id or include_inactive.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds practical context about user membership but no additional behavioral traits such as pagination or error cases, so a moderate score is appropriate.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the core function, the second provides the key usage condition. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary embellishment.

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 zero parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential decision an agent must make: whether to call this tool at all. The single-household case is implied well enough by the wording, so the description is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no input semantics to clarify. The description's reference to 'ids' and 'household_id' adds downstream usage context that goes beyond the empty input schema.

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 what the tool does: it returns the households the current user belongs to, along with their ids. The scope is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling list tools, though it does not explicitly use the verb 'list' or name alternatives.

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 gives explicit conditional guidance: 'Needed only when they belong to more than one — otherwise omit household_id and it resolves to theirs.' This tells an agent when to call the tool and when not to, which is strong usage guidance even without naming a sibling tool.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'geopolitical map layers' context and the fact that results are requestable, but no deeper behavioral traits such as pagination or ordering.

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 concise phrase with no filler, and the core resource is named up front. It earns its place given the tool's trivial zero-parameter interface.

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 catalogue tool with an output schema and strong hints, the description is nearly complete. The only notable gap is not explicitly connecting the returned layers to the get_geo_map request tool.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter information for the description to add. Nothing in the description contradicts or obscures the empty schema.

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 identifies the resource (geopolitical map layers) and the operation (returning a catalogue/list). It is clear enough to distinguish from data-query siblings, though it doesn't explicitly say it is the discovery tool for get_geo_map.

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?

Usage context is only implied: an agent would infer that this is used to see which layers are available before requesting one. There is no explicit when-to-use or mention of alternatives such as get_geo_map, so guidance is minimal.

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

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds only a domain definition rather than additional behavioral context such as result shape, pagination behavior, or default limits, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 very brief and readable, with the domain definition front-loaded in a clear dash-delimited structure. It contains no wasted words, though it is more of a definitional subtitle than a complete operational description.

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?

The strong annotations and presence of an output schema cover safety and return-shape concerns, keeping the overall tool usable without much additional text. However, the description omits usage guidance and leaves parameter semantics mostly implicit, so an agent would still have to reason from parameter names and general API conventions.

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 needs to compensate for the undocumented limit, cursor, asset_class, and household_id parameters. It only loosely hints at asset_class values via the listed categories, and it does not explain the other parameters at all.

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 tool name and title clearly indicate the action, and the description usefully defines the domain as property, vessels, aircraft, art and collections. However, the description itself contains no verb and does not explicitly distinguish this list operation from the sibling get_real_asset tool.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_real_asset or get_real_asset_economics. There is no mention of typical use cases, filtering strategy, or pagination, so the agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds useful context about the returned instrument metrics and the household scope, but it doesn't clarify the behavioral implications of the optional household_id parameter or what happens when it is left empty.

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 concise sentence with no filler, which is appropriate for a simple list operation. It could be marginally improved by explicitly starting with 'Lists,' but the current wording is efficient and readable.

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 an output schema present, the return-value shape is already covered, and the annotations handle the safety profile. The main gap is the missing explanation of the optional household_id parameter and the lack of usage routing among sibling list tools, which are enough to prevent this from being fully complete.

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 compensate for the undocumented household_id parameter. The phrase 'household's tracked instruments' loosely connects the tool to a household, but it does not explain how household_id maps to the result, whether it is required, or what the default '' means behaviorally.

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 identifies a specific resource ('household's tracked instruments') and the data it returns (price, momentum, signal, volatility), making the tool's purpose reasonably clear. It doesn't explicitly say 'lists' but the verb is present in the tool name and title, so there is no ambiguity about the action.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the large sibling list containing many get_* and list_* tools, an agent receives no signal about which scenarios call for list_watchlist rather than, for example, get_signals_recent or get_portfolio_positions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the resource and lookup method, such as pagination, limit semantics, or return format, which would add value.

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 sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the core action and resource, and the parenthetical examples clarify scope efficiently.

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 only two parameters, a rich output schema, and safe-read annotations, the description is mostly adequate. However, the unexplained 'limit' parameter and lack of any statement about expected output or result bounds prevent full completeness for an agent invoking the tool.

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 compensate. It partially explains the 'brand' parameter as accepting brand or keyword values with examples, but it completely omits the 'limit' parameter, its string type, and its default of 10, leaving a significant gap.

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 states a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('alt-asset indices') with clarifying examples (wine, watches, art, cars). It is clear about the tool's scope but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools, though 'index' is a distinct concept among the get/list siblings.

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 a use case: finding alt-asset indices by brand or keyword. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is preferred over related list/get tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the range of analysis modes but nothing about data limitations, calculation cost, or how output differs by mode. That is moderate added context.

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?

One sentence with no filler; it states the resource and the key variants immediately. This is compact and well-structured.

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 12 parameters and 0% schema coverage, this description is too thin for correct advanced usage. A caller can at best invoke defaults with an identifier; configuring signal consensus vs full backtest, benchmark, risk, or indicators requires undocumented knowledge.

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 does not explain any of the 12 parameters. The three mode labels loosely hint at analysis_mode values, but frequency, history_days, initial_cash, trade_mode, risk_per_trade, transaction_cost, and selected_indicators are left entirely undefined.

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 names the core resource ('technical analysis') and three output modes ('signal consensus, regime, full backtest'), so an agent can infer this runs analysis rather than retrieving data. It lacks an explicit imperative verb and doesn't name any sibling, but the purpose is clear enough.

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?

It does not state when to prefer this tool or explicitly exclude alternatives. The phrase 'for any instrument' plus the three modes implies it is the choice when technical-analysis outputs are needed, but no comparison to sibling getters is offered.

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