Accounts Get Net Worth Breakdown

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries a low bar for safety disclosure. But it adds no behavioral context beyond restating the operation: it does not explain default filtering behavior (whether hidden/deleted accounts are exclued), whether results are per-account or aggregated, or what net-worth-specific grouping is applied. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 four-word description is maximally short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It contains no front-loaded distinguishing information, no scoping constraints, and no operational detail, so the terseness costs more information than it saves.

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?

The tool has 5 params including a nested AccountFilterInput with 6 sub-properties, 2 required date/time params, and no output schema — moderately high complexity. The description addresses none of this: no return-shape guidance, no date/time semantics, no filter defaults. The schema and annotations carry almost the entire burden, leaving the agent to guess at the meaning of the required parameters.

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 only 40% — start_date and timeframe are required yet undocumentated (no date format, no timeframe unit/semantics), and the nested filters object has no description at all. With low coverage, the description must compensate, but 'Get net worth breakown' says nothing about date formats, filter semantics, or output modes. The coverade is left entirely to param-name inference.

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 states a verb and resource ('Get net worth breakdown'), so it is not a tautology. However, 'breakdown' is ambiguous — it does not say whether the breakdown is by account type, by asset/liability, or over time, despite required start_date/timeframe params hinting at a time dimension. It also does not distinguish this from the closely named sibling accounts_get_net_worth_performance or the parallel cashflow_get_cashflow_breakdown.

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 guidance of any kind is provided. The description never says when to prefer this tool over accounts_get_net_worth_performance, accounts_get_historical_balances, or cashflow_get_cashflow_breakdown, all of which could plausibly overlap in purpose. No exclusions, prerequistes, or alternatives are named.

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