Get net worth history

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

With readOnlyHint already provided, the description adds meaningful context: the asset-only scope, the by-group breakdown, and the default period. These details go beyond the annotation and help set expectations about what data is returned and its limitations.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences convey purpose, scope, and default behavior without redundancy. The most important information is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes to understanding.

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 read-only, single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the return type (monthly period totals with by-group breakdown), the asset-only limitation, and the default range. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 single parameter 'months' is fully documented in the input schema, including format and default behavior. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level insight, so the schema carries the weight, yielding the baseline score.

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 returns month-end asset totals over time with a by-group breakdown, explicitly distinguishing it from a current net worth snapshot. The verb 'get' plus the resource 'net worth history' and the asset-only caveat make the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It provides contextual guidance: 'for charting how wealth has changed' and notes the default 12-month window. It cautions that liabilities are excluded, which helps the agent decide when this tool is inappropriate, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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