net-worth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real value by disclosing the return format (JSON) and the unit convention (integer cents). However, it says nothing about permissions, pagination, or whether the tool is purely read-only, so the safety/behavioral profile is only partially covered.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the return/unit caveat. No wasted words or filler.

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?

For a simple read-only aggregation tool with only three well-documented parameters, the description plus schema cover what an agent needs, and the explicit JSON/cents note compensates for the absent output schema. It could still say more about the shape of the returned series, but nothing essential is missing.

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 100% and all three parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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-like scope (track assets, liabilities, net worth) and a clear boundary ('across all accounts over time'), which distinguishes it reasonably well from point-in-time siblings like balance-history or monthly-summary. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to prefer for adjacent tasks.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative, even though siblings such as balance-history, cash-flow, and monthly-summary overlap in the account-over-time space. The agent must infer the selection criteria itself.

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