schwab_place_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states that the tool places an order, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., order submission, potential rejection), auth requirements, rate limits, or any prerequisites beyond the account_hash. For a mutating action, this is insufficiently transparent.

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 entire description is three lines, prioritizing the core purpose upfront. No extraneous words; every sentence adds value. It is well-structured with parameter descriptions following the purpose.

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 complexity (generic order placement with nested object param) and existing output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It mentions that order_spec follows the Schwab API format but omits details on required fields, expected return values, or error scenarios. It relies heavily on external helpers.

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 add meaning. It explains account_hash as 'from schwab_account_numbers' and order_spec as a dict 'as accepted by the Schwab API, typically produced via schwab order builder helpers'. This adds valuable context beyond the schema's name and type.

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 'Place a generic Schwab order using a raw order specification', specifying the action, resource, and input type. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle specific order types (e.g., schwab_buy_stock_limit, schwab_option_buy_to_open). The verb 'Place' and noun 'order' are precise.

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 indicates use when you have a raw order specification, typically built with order builder helpers. It implicitly contrasts with specific order tools. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, such as advising against using this for simple market orders when dedicated helpers exist.

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