schwab_get_interest_payments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only states 'Get' implying read-only, but lacks details on side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or what happens if dates are omitted. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 extremely concise: two lines of purpose and three parameter descriptions. No redundant information, every sentence adds value. Efficiently structured.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description does not specify default behavior when dates are omitted, potential errors, or whether the tool returns all or filtered payments. Adequate but incomplete for a robust retrieval tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds format hints (YYYY-MM-DD for dates) and source context for account_hash ('from schwab_account_numbers'). This adds meaningful value beyond the schema.

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 interest payments for a Schwab account,' identifying the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'schwab_get_dividends' or the generic 'interest_payments' tool, so it lacks explicit distinction.

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 like 'interest_payments' or 'schwab_get_total_dividends'. The mention of 'account hash from schwab_account_numbers' implies a prerequisite but does not provide usage context or exclusions.

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