schwab_get_margin_interest

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

No annotations provided. Description mentions 'Get' implying read-only, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as rate limits, pagination, error handling, or whether it requires specific permissions. Minimal transparency.

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?

Description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words, which is concise. However, it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points) and is arguably too brief to cover necessary details.

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?

Tool has an output schema (not shown), so return values are covered. But description omits important context such as how date filtering works, whether all transactions or only recent ones are included, and any caveats about margin interest calculation.

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%, meaning structured fields have no documentation. The description adds no explanation of the parameters (account_hash, start_date, end_date), their format, or optionality. Fails to compensate for lack of schema documentation.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'Schwab margin-interest charges', and the source 'from transaction history'. It distinguishes from generic 'margin_interest' sibling by specifying Schwab, but there are many similar sibling tools (e.g., schwab_get_interest_payments) with no differentiation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like schwab_get_interest_payments. The description implies usage via the name, but lacks 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.