report

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It describes the outputs of each view (monthly trends, income/expenses, single-period summary) without revealing side effects or auth needs. Implies read-only behavior but does not explicitly state it; lacks explicit idempotency guarantee.

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 dense but well-organized, using bold and backticks for clarity. It front-loads the core purpose and maps targets to outputs. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but remains 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must cover return values. It describes outputs for each view and explains the relationship to sibling tools. Lacks structural details (e.g., data types), but is sufficient for a reporting tool given the context.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline is 3. The description adds value for 'target' by detailing each enum value and for 'period' by noting default behavior. For 'currency' and 'limit', it provides minimal extra context beyond the schema, but overall compensates adequately.

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 produces aggregated wealth reports and lists four distinct views (balance, flow, settle, combined) with specific use cases. It also differentiates from sibling tool show_snapshot by noting when to pair them.

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?

Explicitly identifies it as the primary entry point for wealth-trajectory questions and explains why portfolio value alone is insufficient. Provides guidance on when to pair with show_snapshot, offering clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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