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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses that property_equity is always present and may be negative, that property_equity_counted_in_net_worth and include_property_in_net_worth explain the inclusion decision, and that empty:true means missing user data with a next_step_url rather than an error. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the field/behavioral notes are ordered logically. It is on the long side and several presentation-policy sentences could be tightened, but each carries behavioral weight rather than restating the schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and only one input parameter, the description correctly carries the return-value burden — naming the response fields, the property-inclusion flags, and the empty-result shape. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and it is a single optional parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point by explaining what month actually does semantically — it 'overrides the snapshot month' — which the schema's bare 'YYYY-MM, optional' does not convey.

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?

States a precise verb and resource ('Returns the authenticated user's current net worth in their base currency') and enumerates the category breakdown, so the scope is unambiguous. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from siblings like get_accounts or get_balance_history, which is the only thing keeping it from 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 is rich in guidance, but almost all of it concerns how to present and interpret results (respect the setting, give the counterfactual, don't imply no property) rather than when to choose this tool over alternatives. Tool selection relative to get_accounts / get_balance_history / get_wealth_percentile is left entirely implicit.

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