get_wealth_playbooks

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior, so the description does not need to cover these. It adds the context of 'personal wealth building' but no additional behavioral details (e.g., data freshness, pagination). With good annotation coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 concise with two sentences (English and Vietnamese) and no fluff. It's front-loaded with the key purpose. However, it could be slightly restructured to improve clarity for an agent, but overall it's efficient.

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 large number of siblings (30+), the description lacks differentiation. It doesn't explain what a 'playbook' is or what the return format looks like. With no output schema, more behavioral context is needed. Complexity is low, but completeness is inadequate for effective tool selection.

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 100%, so the input schema fully documents both parameters. The description hints at filtering by category via 'allocation by age/risk' but doesn't explicitly explain the 'category' parameter. Thus, it adds no significant value beyond the schema, warranting a baseline 3.

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 retrieves personal wealth building playbooks, covering savings and allocation by age/risk. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_fund_playbooks' or 'get_commodity_playbooks' by focusing on general personal wealth. However, it could be more specific about what constitutes a wealth playbook.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The description implies it's for personal wealth, but doesn't mention when not to use it or provide comparisons to siblings like 'get_bank_rate_playbooks' or 'get_macro_playbooks'. Agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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