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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add real value beyond that: totals are connected-account-only, the documentBacked figures are as-of statement date and never live, and account/loan numbers are truncated to last four. This is substantive behavioral context layered on top of the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose before the caveats, and every clause carries information. It is dense to the point of being a single sprawling block, and the documentBacked aside could be tightened, but nothing is pure 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, yet the description still clarifies the entity spine, the connected-account-only basis, and the statement-date nature of documentBacked data. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's clientId sentence is essentially verbatim what the schema already documents, adding no new syntax, format, or validation meaning.

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 verb and resource ('Get connected-account liquidity broken out by entity') and immediately scopes it: cash, investments, debt, net connected value per entity plus household total. It also draws a hard boundary against neighboring concepts ('Connected accounts only in the totals, not full net worth'), which separates it from broader snapshot tools.

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 caller-dependent guidance: members may omit clientId for their own record, professionals must pass it unless X1 already supplied a client-scoped context, and scoped specialists are excluded. It does not name a sibling alternative for the full-net-worth case, so the routing is clear but not fully explicit.

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