net_worth_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful behavioral scope — 'every open account' excludes closed accounts, and it reports the shape of the result. However, it never states that the operation is read-only, nor how multi-currency or missing-balance accounts are handled, so key traits remain implicit.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that leads with the verb and scope and terminates with the output shape. Nothing is redundant and nothing is padded.

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 zero-parameter, read-style aggregate with no output schema, the description adequately covers what it computes and what it returns. It could go further by confirming read-only behavior and noting currency/closed-account handling, but the essentials are present.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed for the snapshot.

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?

States a specific verb ('Totals') and resource ('current balance across every open account in every budget') and names the exact output ('a single net worth figure, plus a per-budget breakdown'). This distinguishes it from the sibling list_all_account_balances, which enumerates balances rather than aggregating them.

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 aggregation scope implicitly tells the agent when this tool is appropriate (need a single net-worth number rather than per-account detail), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of alternatives like list_all_account_balances or get_month_summary.

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