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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default behavior (30-day window), output format (markdown rows), and status enum. It does not mention authentication requirements or rate limits, but as a read-only tool, the description provides sufficient context for safe invocation. The format details are beyond schema.

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 well-structured: a clear main statement, then bullet points for output format, a paragraph for date default, and a list for status enum. It is front-loaded with purpose. However, it is somewhat verbose with the detailed format explanation that is also present in the output schema.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description's detailed output format is somewhat redundant but adds clarity. It covers default behavior and status filter. Missing details: pagination, max orders returned, and any account-specific notes. Overall, it is fairly complete for a read operation.

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 coverage is 80%; the description adds important context: the date window defaults and the requirement to pass both parameters together. It also lists the valid status values, which are not in the schema's enum. This adds meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

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's function: 'Get order history for the active Schwab account.' The verb 'Get' and resource 'order history' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'schwab_get_brokerage_order' (singular), which might fetch a single order. The output description suggests multiple orders, but no direct comparison.

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 provides guidance on parameter usage: default date window and requirement to pass both dates if overriding one. It also lists valid status_filter values. However, it does not explain when to use this tool over alternatives like 'schwab_get_brokerage_transactions' or 'schwab_get_brokerage_order'. No when-not-to-use or context for other scenarios.

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