schwab_account

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states it 'gets' details, lacking info on authorization needs, rate limits, or error behavior (e.g., invalid account_hash).

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 short, includes a clear one-liner front-loaded, and an Args section. No extraneous information; every sentence adds value.

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?

While output schema exists (so return values not needed), the description lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., needing account_hash from another tool) and does not differentiate from similar sibling tools. Adequate but incomplete for a tool with many alternatives.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning: explains account_hash as requiring a prior call to schwab_account_numbers and notes include_positions defaults to True. This compensates well for the schema's lack of 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 retrieves account details including balances and positions, with a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'Schwab account'. It differentiates from some siblings like schwab_account_balances but not explicitly from others like schwab_accounts.

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 the many sibling tools (e.g., schwab_accounts, schwab_get_all_account_data). Missing context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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