schwab_order_buy_option_limit

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It fails to mention that the order is submitted to a broker, may not fill, returns an order confirmation, requires sufficient margin/cash, or could incur fees. The description only states the action without side effects, error conditions, or the nature of limit orders. This is insufficient for a trading tool.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then details in an Args block. It is concise with no filler, but the Args format is slightly verbose (e.g., repeating 'Account hash from...' could be shortened). Still efficient overall.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description lacks critical context: no mention of order lifecycle (pending, filled, rejected), no caution about price string format or option symbol validation, no prerequisite about account readiness or margin. For a financial order tool, this underinforms the agent for safe invocation.

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. The 'Args' section adds essential meaning: account_hash is linked to schwab_account_numbers, option_symbol includes an example OCC symbol, quantity specifies contracts, and price shows a decimal string example. This provides practical guidance beyond the schema's type/name alone.

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 starts with a clear action: 'Place a limit buy-to-open order for an option contract.' It explicitly states the verb 'Place', the resource 'option contract', and the order type 'limit buy-to-open'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like buy_stock_limit (stock vs option) and schwab_option_sell_to_close (sell vs buy). The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 (e.g., market orders, stop orders, or other option order types). It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an account hash from another tool) or conditions (e.g., market hours, available funds). There is no mention of when not to use it.

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