Get net worth

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already declares this as a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful context: it includes both on- and off-budget accounts, provides per-account breakdown, and specifies 'Open accounts only' - implying closed accounts are excluded. This is useful behavioral transparency beyond what annotations provide.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Full net worth') followed by the composures and constraints. Every word earns its place - no fluff, efficiently crams scope, breakdown granularity, and filtering into one sentence.

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?

This is a read-only summary tool with no parameters, no output schema required, and good annotations. The description covers scope (both budget types), granularity (per-account breakdown), and a key filtering constraint. It's complete for its complexity level - no obvious missing information an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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 tool has 0 parameters and schema description coverage is 100%. With no parameters, there is nothing to document; the description's scope note ('Open accounts only') compensates well. Baseline 4 for 0-param tools is appropriate here.

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 reports net worth covering both on-budget and off-budget accounts (pensions, funds, mortgage) with per-account breakdown. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (get_accounts, get_spending_summary) by specifying composed financial scope. Very specific verb+resource+scope.

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 clarifies it covers both on- and off-budget categories, which helps distinguish from get_accounts etc. It notes 'Open accounts only,' which is an important filtering constraint. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, though context makes the choice fairly clear.

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