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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context: values are in the user's base currency in major units, costBasis/pnl are also base-currency, and the figures are stated to match the net-worth page. It does not mention staleness or refresh timing, which would be the remaining useful detail.

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?

Three sentences, each doing distinct work: what is returned, the field-level detail with currency semantics, and when to reach for it. The core purpose is front-loaded and 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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing the return, and it does: currency basis, per-account and per-asset breakdown, and the specific derived fields. An agent can call this and interpret the result without further documentation.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, a 4 is appropriate; no parameter meaning is missing.

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 the user's current net worth') plus scope: base currency, broken down by account and asset. It also enumerates the returned fields (costBasis, pnl, pnlPercent), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like get_accounts and get_assets that return granular primitives instead of a rolled-up total.

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 final sentence explicitly routes usage: 'Use this for any question about total wealth, total assets, total liabilities, or how rich/poor the user is.' That is clear context, but it names no alternative or exclusion (e.g., when to prefer get_accounts or get_assets for per-item detail), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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