schwab_get_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates a retrieval operation ('Get details'), implying read-only behavior, but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, lacks rate limit or auth info, and does not disclose any side effects.

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: a single-sentence purpose, then a line for each argument. No superfluous words. It is well-structured with clear Args section.

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 need not be described. However, the description omits context about order state (open/closed), prerequisites, and when to use this vs. other order retrieval tools. It covers basics but lacks completeness for complex scenarios.

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%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter semantics. It describes account_hash as 'Account hash from schwab_account_numbers' and order_id as 'Order ID to retrieve,' adding useful context (especially the source of account_hash) beyond the schema's bare titles.

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 states 'Get details for a specific Schwab order,' which clearly identifies the action (get details) and the resource (a specific order). It implies singularity compared to listing tools like schwab_orders, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like schwab_get_transaction.

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?

The description mentions account_hash source ('from schwab_account_numbers') and order_id, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like schwab_orders or schwab_get_open_stock_orders. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are given.

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