schwab_account_numbers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action without disclosing that it is a read-only operation, any authentication requirements, or potential side effects. The brevity fails to convey important behavioral context.

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 sentence that immediately conveys the core function. It is perfectly concise with no redundant words, earning top marks for efficiency.

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 sensitive nature of account numbers and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is too minimal. It lacks context about security, whether the operation is read-only, or how it relates to other account tools. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for missing usage and behavioral context.

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 no parameters, making the schema coverage trivially 100%. Per guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Schwab account numbers and their hashes'), clearly stating the tool's output. It distinguishes from siblings like 'schwab_accounts' which likely returns broader account info, but it could be more explicit about the uniqueness of returning hashes.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'schwab_accounts' or 'schwab_account_balances'. No mention of prerequisites or use cases, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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