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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full weight of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. The minimal description only hints at the output but lacks safety/behavioral guarantees.

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 concise sentence that states the core function. It is appropriately front-loaded and lacks extraneous text, though it could benefit from additional details without becoming verbose.

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?

Given no output schema and three required parameters, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'totals' and 'trend' entail, nor the output format. Sibling tools suggest financial data, but the description alone is too vague for confident use.

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%, but the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names and types. For example, 'currency' is only a 3-character string with no indication it should be an ISO code. The tool name implies net worth but parameters are unclear on format or constraints.

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 states the tool returns 'net worth totals and trend for a date range,' with a specific verb ('return') and resource ('net worth summary'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_portfolio_total_value by focusing on net worth summary over a range.

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 use for date-range queries but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_portfolio_total_value or get_account_allocation. No exclusion criteria or alternative suggestions.

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