get_net_worth_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the data is 'pre-calculated' (suggesting a read operation) but doesn't disclose whether this is a safe read, whether it requires specific permissions, what the response format is, or how the time range affects results. The term 'pre-calculated' adds some context but leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get pre-calculated net worth summary') and adds the time dimension. No wasted words, though it could have used the space to add usage or behavioral context.

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?

For a read-style summary tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It doesn't explain what the summary contains (e.g., net worth per day, total assets minus liabilities), how to interpret the time range, or any limitations. An agent would need to infer the return structure and behavior from the name alone.

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%, with both start and end parameters described as 'YYYY-MM-DD' format strings. The description adds the context that these define the time range for the summary, but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('pre-calculated net worth summary over time'), which clearly identifies the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_spending_summary and get_account_overview_chart by focusing on net worth over time, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 usage for retrieving net worth summaries over a time range, and the required start/end parameters make the context clear. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over get_spending_summary or get_account_overview_chart, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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