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

Annotations already establish read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful output context ('categories, values, and depreciation info') and claims completeness ('all hard assets'), but does not mention pagination, ordering, or auth semantics. This is adequate for a simple read operation but no more.

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?

Short, front-loaded, and free of filler. The 'Returns:' line is purposeful because there is no output 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?

For a parameterless, read-only list with rich annotations, the description covers the purpose, scope, and return shape. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema carries no burden and the description's 'all hard assets' reinforces the unfiltered scope. Baseline for zero-parameter tools applies.

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 ('List') with a clear resource ('all hard assets') and enumerates covered subtypes ('real estate, vehicles, valuables'), which distinguishes it from create/update/delete_hard_asset and from aggregate net-worth tools. The 'for net worth tracking' purpose adds further context without ambiguity.

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?

It says the list serves 'net worth tracking,' giving a general context for use, but it does not explain when to prefer this over related getters like get_net_worth or get_balance_sheet, nor does it state exclusions. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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