Get net worth history

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, covering safety and side-effect expectations. The description adds the behavioral trait of 'daily aggregate balances' but does not describe pagination, required date ranges, or response shape beyond what the output schema likely provides. No contradiction with 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?

A single, tight sentence that leads with the action and object, then states the aggregate scope and filter. No filler, no repetition of schema details that are already present.

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?

Given the simple read-only nature, the presence of an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate for an agent to decide when to call it. Minor gaps remain about whether date range is required and how the aggregated balances are denominated or structured, but these are not critical for a basic invocation.

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 67% with start_date and end_date documented as 'Date in YYYY-MM-DD format'. The description explicitly mentions 'optionally filtered by account type', which gives meaningful semantic context to the undocumented account_type parameter, clarifying its purpose and optionality.

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?

Description starts with a specific verb ('Get') and a resource ('net worth history') with clear scope ('daily aggregate balances across accounts') and an optional filter. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like get_account_history or get_recent_account_balances by emphasizing cross-account aggregation.

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 a clear use case: retrieving aggregated daily balances across accounts, which contrasts with per-account history tools. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context of 'across accounts' and 'optionally filtered by account type' provides enough guidance for an agent to select it over more granular tools.

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