net_worth_history

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

With no annotations, the description adds value by disclosing that loan/credit balances are negative, data is from the archive, and each sync records a snapshot. It does not cover data freshness or time range limits, but the core behavioral traits are well explained.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. No redundancy or wasted words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return value details are handled. The description covers purpose, data source, and key behavioral aspects. It could mention if there are any constraints (e.g., date range limits), but given no input params, it is reasonably complete.

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 input schema has zero parameters with 100% description coverage, so the description need not add parameter information. The baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description effectively communicates that no parameters are needed.

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 it provides total balance across all accounts per as-of date, building a net-worth trend over time. It differentiates from siblings like 'account_balances' by focusing on historical snapshots, not current balances.

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 description implies use for historical net worth trend analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'account_balances' or 'spending_summary'. No exclusions or alternative names are given.

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