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 contextual detail about what the returned capability surface includes (the listed wealth domains). It does not go further into response shape, pagination, or operational behavior, but for a zero-parameter read-only listing tool, annotations plus scope are adequate.

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, but the parenthetical enumeration of thirteen domains is dense. It earns its place by conveying the breadth of the connector, though it could be slightly better structured. Overall it is appropriately sized for a simple meta-level listing 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description is sufficient. The only minor ambiguity is whether 'capabilities' refers to tool endpoints or data categories, but the domain list mitigates this. No critical information for invoking the tool 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?

There are zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The category list in the description indirectly tells the agent what kind of content to expect in results. The baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools applies here.

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 the Antevo Wealth connector's capability surface and specifies its full scope with an enumerated list of domains (portfolio, risk, credit, real assets, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list specific resources like accounts, documents, or watchlists. The verb 'exposes' combined with 'whole wealth surface' makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 this is a discovery/orientation tool by saying it exposes everything behind a single connection, but it never explicitly states when to use it versus alternatives. It does not say 'call this first to see available capabilities' or mention any conditions under which a sibling tool would be more appropriate. Usage context is only implied, not stated.

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