Accounts Get Net Worth Performance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context of its own, such as how net worth performance is aggregated, how adaptive granularity changes results, or how date ranges are handled, so it contributes nothing beyond the structured annotations.

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 a single, under-specified sentence that adds no detail; this is under-specification rather than meaningful conciseness. It briefly front-loads the resource name but contains no structure, caveats, or context that would justify its brevity.

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?

With 6 parameters, a nested AccountFilterInput, date inputs, an output_mode enum, no output schema, and many sibling tools that overlap in domain, this definition is far from complete. It lacks any information about the returned shape, date range constraints, filtering semantics, or what differentiates this from historical balances/breakdown endpoints.

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 33%, covering fields and output_mode, but filters, start_date, end_date, and use_adaptive_granularity are undocumented in the schema and the description mentions none of them. Because coverage is low, the description was required to compensate and instead provides zero parameter explanation.

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 'Get net worth performance.' merely restates the tool's name/title and provides no definition of what 'performance' means (e.g., time-series returns, growth over period, or a chart dataset). It also does not distinguish the tool from nearby siblings like accounts_get_net_worth_breakdown or accounts_get_historical_balances, so an agent cannot tell what unique result this returns.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives. The sibling list includes several accounts_* net-worth/history tools, but the description never names a selection condition or exclusion, leaving the agent to guess from parameter names and context.

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