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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the four output components but does not disclose operational behavior such as whether results are household-level aggregates, time-series snapshots, or based on current market data. 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 succinct phrase with no filler words. The em-dash structure front-loads the domain and immediately enumerates the key metrics, making it appropriately sized for a simple getter.

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 is simple, has one optional parameter, strong read-only annotations, and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, the lack of any parameter guidance and no usage context leaves an agent to infer the role of household_id, making the description adequate but with 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 does not explain household_id at all. The field is self-descriptive as an ID, but the description fails to clarify whether it filters to a single household, defaults to a current household, or is required for meaningful 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 the resource ('real-asset economics') and specifies the output content: income, costs, net cashflow, and net yield. This distinguishes it from the sibling get_real_asset by focusing on financial metrics rather than asset details, though it does not explicitly name a sibling or state a verb beyond the tool's 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_real_asset, list_real_assets, or other financial getters. The description only states what the tool returns; it does not mention when it should be preferred or when an alternative would be more appropriate.

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