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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value beyond that: it clarifies this is a deep link (no mutation), that non-bank assets and debts are included, and that the chart is opt-in. It stops short of describing what the caller experiences after navigating, keeping it at a 4.

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 identifying sentence and the routing sentence are front-loaded and the alternative tools are grouped at the end. It is somewhat long with a dense list of quoted example queries, but each clause conveys routing or scope information rather than filler.

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-required-param, closed-world navigation tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the definition covers scope, inclusions/exclusions, sibling routing, and the current-month default. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in structured form. The description only adds the default behavior for year/month ('omit both for the current month'), which is largely a restatement of the schema text, so baseline 3 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?

States a specific action (deep link) on a specific resource (Net Worth page) and defines exactly what the page represents: assets minus debts for a month plus an optional over-time chart. It also explicitly carves itself out from siblings like navigate_to_account_summary, the spend tools, and navigate_to_cashflows, so an agent can route without opening another schema.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use phrasings ('what am I worth', 'assets vs debts', 'am I better off than last year') and names three explicit alternatives with the conditions that select them. Nothing is left to inference about which navigation tool to pick.

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