schwab_open_option_orders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the filtering criteria (statuses and option leg requirement) but does not mention read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or behavior with no results.

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 relatively concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by a bullet-like list of statuses and parameter details. It could be more streamlined, but it is not overly verbose.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and the tool is a simple read-only retrieval, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and parameters. It provides enough context for correct invocation without needing to detail return values.

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%, but the description explains that account_hash should come from get_schwab_account_numbers() and max_results is the maximum orders to fetch before filtering. This adds useful context beyond the schema types and defaults.

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 the tool retrieves open option orders for a Schwab account, specifying it only returns orders with option legs and specific statuses. This distinguishes it from other order tools like open_stock_orders or options_orders.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when it should not be used. There is no comparison to related tools like open_option_orders or schwab_get_open_option_orders.

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