Calculate Net Worth

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining that the tool provides 'a health assessment' and 'projects future wealth growth' using monthly savings data. While annotations already declare this as read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and closed-world, the description usefully elaborates on the tool's analytical capabilities.

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 efficiently structured with two sentences: the first explains what the tool does, the second provides usage guidance. While slightly verbose in the first sentence ('single most important number' could be trimmed), it remains focused and front-loaded with essential 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?

For a calculation tool with comprehensive annotations (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent) and full schema coverage, the description provides adequate context. It explains the tool's analytical outputs (health assessment, wealth projection) that aren't covered elsewhere. The main gap is lack of output format information, but this is partially mitigated by the clear purpose statement.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description mentions that monthly savings is 'used for wealth projection' and implies assets/liabilities are used for net worth calculation, but adds minimal additional semantic context beyond what's in the comprehensive schema 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('calculates', 'provides', 'projects') and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on net worth calculation rather than budgeting or other financial analysis. It explicitly defines net worth as 'Assets minus Liabilities' and positions it as 'the single most important number in personal finance'.

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 provides explicit usage guidance with three specific scenarios: 'when someone wants to know their net worth, understand their financial position, or see how their wealth might grow.' This clearly tells the agent when to use this tool versus other financial analysis tools in the sibling list.

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