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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the description's added value here is real: it discloses rounding, a minimum group size of five, that results are never individual, and that the population is self-selected rather than a national census. That is meaningful disclosure beyond structured fields, though it says nothing about rate limits, caching, or how sparse cells are represented.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what is measured and followed immediately by the scope filters and the important population caveat. No sentence could be removed without losing meaning.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations gap to cover, and the description does describe the return content (percentiles plus a leading asset class). The phrase 'the asset class most of them are led by' is slightly garbled, leaving mild ambiguity about whether the asset class is modal or tied to a specific percentile, which is the only real omission.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the ISO code/'WORLD' convention and the age-band enum. The description only reinforces the defaults ('Omit for WORLD', 'optionally') without adding format or behavioral detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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?

The description names a concrete resource and its shape: net worth at the 25th/50th/75th/90th percentiles plus a dominant asset class, scoped by country and optional age band. That is specific enough to distinguish it from a plain percentile tool, but it never names the nearest siblings (net_worth_percentile, net_worth_by_age, country_net_worth_thresholds), so differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Usage is implied by 'worldwide or in one country, optionally within an age band', which tells an agent which filters are combinable. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or pointer to the alternative tools, so an agent must infer that net_worth_by_age or net_worth_percentile may be the better pick for narrower asks.

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