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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose meaningful methodological context—the comparison population is US families grouped by the head's age—but says nothing about the data source or vintage, whether the result is a percentile 0-100 or a rank statement, or whether it is a pure read-only computation.

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 front-loaded sentence states the purpose, followed by only the two argument clarifications the bare schema needs. Nothing is 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 two-parameter read-only calculation this is close to adequate, and the parameters are fully explained. The remaining gap is the result: with no output schema, the agent cannot tell what form the percentile answer takes.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: age is bounded to 18-110 and net_worth is defined as assets minus debts in USD, explicitly allowed to be negative. It adds real meaning beyond the bare integer/number schema types.

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 specific computation: ranking a net worth against US families with a same-age head. The percentile framing is distinct from the sibling net_worth_by_age, but the description never explicitly names or contrasts with it, leaving differentiation to inference.

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 on when to use this versus net_worth_by_age or the retirement tools, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer the use case 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.