schwab_get_all_option_positions

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it retrieves all option positions. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or what constitutes 'all' (e.g., open/closed positions).

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, highly concise with no redundancy. Every word serves a purpose, focusing on the core action and scope.

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 the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description lacks contextual completeness. It does not differentiate from similar siblings, nor does it provide behavioral context or usage boundaries, which are important given the complex sibling environment.

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?

No parameters exist in the schema, so the description does not need to add parameter-level meaning. With zero parameters, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate, and the description provides no unnecessary details.

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 'Get all Schwab option positions across linked accounts', providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'all_option_positions' or 'schwab_options_positions', leaving potential ambiguity.

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 alternatives. The sibling list includes many similar tools (e.g., 'all_option_positions', 'open_option_positions'), but the description offers no context for selection.

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