net_worth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the calculation formula (assets minus liabilities) but doesn't disclose edge behaviors like handling of missing accounts, currency considerations, whether unrealized gains are included, or how empty books are handled.

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 compact with clear sectioning and parameter docstring format. It's front-loaded with the core definition. Slightly longer than ideal but every line earns its place explaining distinct functionality.

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 return-value burden is reduced. The tool has moderate complexity (two modes, three parameters) and the description covers the parameter surface well. It lacks clarity on when this tool is preferable to sibling reporting tools, but is otherwise complete for its complexity.

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 full parameter meaning. It does this well: end_date (as-of date), start_date (optional time-series start), interval (month/quarter/year options). All three parameters are explained with format and semantics.

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 verb (calculate) and resource (net worth = assets minus liabilities), and distinguishes between single-point and time-series modes. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like balance_sheet or get_balance, but the resource concept is clearly defined.

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 explains the date/interval parameters for controlling the calculation mode but doesn't say when to use this tool vs alternatives like balance_sheet, get_book_summary, or cash_flow. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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