schwab_transactions

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states a read operation with filters, failing to disclose pagination, rate limits, authentication, or any side effects. The agent is left without critical context.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure (e.g., no bullet points, no explicit listing of parameters). It is not verbose but sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, many sibling tools, and an output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain output structure, error handling, or when to prefer this tool over similar ones, leaving a significant knowledge gap.

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%, and the description only generically mentions 'date/type/symbol' filters without specifying parameter formats (e.g., date format, possible transaction types, symbol syntax). It adds minimal value beyond parameter 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 clearly states the tool retrieves Schwab transactions with optional filters for date, type, and symbol, matching the tool name and schema. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like schwab_transactions_by_date, which may have overlapping functionality.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description lacks any indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., schwab_transactions_by_date or schwab_get_transaction), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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