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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds value by explaining the return structure (breakdown by account and asset, including costBasis, pnl, pnlPercent) and clarifying that it mirrors the net-worth page. This is context beyond what annotations provide, though it does not address optional details like pagination or specific data freshness.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence delivers the core function and output details, and the second provides explicit usage guidance. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place, making it an excellent example of efficient tool documentation.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers what an agent needs: what it returns, the data breakdown, and when to use it. It also pre-empts common questions about currency and the comparison to the net-worth page. There is no missing information that would hinder a 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond what the schema implies. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for missing param docs. The description does not over-explain or introduce ambiguity.

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 the user's current net worth in their base currency, with a breakdown by account and asset, and specifies the included fields (costBasis, pnl, pnlPercent). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_accounts and get_assets, which would provide individual account or asset data rather than an aggregated net worth.

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 explicitly directs use: 'Use this for any question about total wealth, total assets, total liabilities, or how rich/poor the user is.' This is clear and actionable. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when NOT to use it, but the guidance is specific enough to route the agent correctly for net-worth queries.

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