net_worth_tracker__liquid_asset_ratio

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, or any side effects. It simply repeats the tool name.

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 very short but adds no value. It is underspecified, not concise. Every word should earn its place, and this description fails to provide any useful information.

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 has two parameters and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not state the formula (e.g., liquid_assets / total_assets) or provide any return value context. This is inadequate for a net worth tracking tool in a financial domain.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds no meaning to the parameters 'liquid_assets' and 'total_assets' beyond their names. It does not explain what qualifies as liquid assets or total assets in this context.

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 is a tautology: '[net-worth-tracker] liquid_asset_ratio' simply restates the name without specifying that it computes a ratio. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'debt_to_asset_ratio' or 'asset_allocation'.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description offers no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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