schwab_transactions_by_date

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function without mentioning read-only, destructive, or performance traits. The agent learns nothing about side effects, pagination, or required permissions.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is appropriately short but sacrifices completeness for brevity; a bit more detail on parameters would improve without harming conciseness.

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 5 parameters (3 required) and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete for effective tool selection and invocation. While an output schema exists, the description does not help the agent understand parameter specifics, making it insufficiently complete.

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%, and the description adds no meaning beyond parameter names. It fails to explain date formats, optionality of transaction_types and symbol, or how to use account_hash. The agent cannot infer valid inputs from the description 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 clearly states the tool retrieves Schwab transactions with a required start and end date constraint. Among siblings, it distinguishes from 'schwab_transactions' (unconstrained) and 'schwab_get_transaction' (single transaction), making the purpose specific and clear.

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 implies usage for date-range transaction retrieval but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives or when not to use. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are given, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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