get_net_worth

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only describes the output structure but does not mention whether data is real-time, cached, requires authentication, or if any side effects occur. A read-only hint or access requirements are missing, leaving behavioral expectations unclear.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and output breakdown. While clear and concise, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet format) but is generally effective.

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 no parameters and an existing output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's return structure (assets vs liabilities, category subtotals). It implicitly defines net worth but does not note whether data reflects live or historical state. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a simple summary tool.

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?

There are zero parameters in the input schema, and schema description coverage is 100%. Per the calibration rule, 0 parameters warrant a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics as none exist.

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 returns a summary of current net worth, broken into total assets vs total liabilities with subtotals by category. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_asset_allocation (allocation breakdown) and list_accounts (account listing).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that get_asset_allocation is more appropriate for investment-specific breakdowns or that get_transactions provides granular ledger data. The description simply states what it does without contextual usage advice.

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