Get Net Worth History

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: default date windows (one year ago to today), inclusive boundary semantics, and the exact row shape each mode returns. It does not cover behavior like whether accounts with no history are included or whether values are point-in-time vs cumulative.

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 summary sentence front-loads the two-mode distinction, followed by a tightly scoped args block. Every line carries information an agent needs; nothing restates the title or name.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't document return values exhaustively, and it still sketches both shapes usefully. Gaps are minor: no max date range, currency, or treatment of liability sign conventions, but nothing blocks a correct call.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: every one of the three params is explained, including accepted formats ('ISO or natural language') and defaults for both date params. Critically, it explains that by_account_type changes the entire response shape and adds an account_types mapping to asset/liability groups, which is meaning unavailable anywhere in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get net worth over time') and immediately distinguishes its two modes ('daily totals, or monthly balances per account type'). It is distinguishable from sibling analytics tools like get_cashflow and get_spending_summary in substance, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives clear selection logic via by_account_type: false for daily all-account totals, true for monthly per-type balances, plus default date behavior. It stops short of stating exclusions or naming alternative tools (e.g. when to prefer get_account_history instead).

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