schwab_get_transaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention idempotency, authentication, rate limits, or any side effects. The tool is likely read-only, but this is not confirmed. The description lacks 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?

The description is short and structured with an 'Args:' section. It is mostly concise, though the 'Args:' block is somewhat redundant with the schema. No wasted sentences.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so missing return value info is acceptable. However, given the lack of annotations and the presence of many siblings, a bit more context about data scope or permissions would strengthen completeness.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning for account_hash ('from schwab_account_numbers') and transaction_id ('to retrieve'). This adds some value beyond the schema, but does not fully explain constraints or formats.

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 details for a specific Schwab transaction,' which indicates the verb and resource. It is specific about what the tool does, although it could further differentiate from sibling tools like schwab_get_order or schwab_transactions.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools, and no context is given about use cases or prerequisites (e.g., that the transaction ID must come from a prior listing).

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