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

The description adds behavioral clarity by stating the exact formula (assets minus liabilities), which goes beyond the annotations. The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, pure calculation; the formula further explains the operation without contradicting 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?

The description is a single sentence that is immediately understandable and front-loaded with the core concept. It contains no filler or redundant information, achieving maximum efficiency for a simple calculation tool.

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 simple arithmetic tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description provides the essential formula. However, it does not address potential edge cases (e.g., negative values) or offer usage context relative to the many sibling financial tools, which would slightly enhance completeness.

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 input schema fully documents both parameters (assets and liabilities) with 100% coverage. The description reinforces their meaning by showing how they relate in the formula, adding semantic context beyond individual parameter descriptions.

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 'Net worth: assets minus liabilities' clearly specifies the computation with a specific formula, distinguishing it from other financial calculators like current-ratio or quick-ratio. While it lacks an explicit verb like 'calculate', the formula is unambiguous and closely tied to the tool name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, edge cases, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer suitability from the formula alone.

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