get_account

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully clarifies that account_number is the plain user-visible number (not internal hash) and that include_positions controls position inclusion. However, it omits error behavior, auth requirements, and the exact structure of the returned object.

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 compact and well-structured, with no redundant content. The purpose is front-loaded and the arg/return format is standard.

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?

For a 2-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description provides the essential operational details but leaves the return object's contents (beyond balances/positions) unspecified. Since no annotations or output schema exist, this is a notable gap for an agent deciding if the tool yields enough information.

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?

Both parameters are given meaningful context beyond the schema: account_number's required format is clarified, and include_positions' effect is stated. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 a specific verb (Get), resource (one Schwab account's details), and scope (balances and optionally positions). It distinguishes itself from list_accounts by specifying 'one' account, and from quote/order/transaction tools by the resource type.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like list_accounts. The description implies single-account retrieval but never names alternatives or exclusion criteria.

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