list_orders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and handles it well. It discloses read-only behavior, the entered-time window semantics, return ordering ('most recent first'), and a critical input constraint: the plain account number rather than the internal hash.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose, a behavioral warning, an Args block, and a Returns line. Each element adds necessary information without padding, and the parameter details are organized for quick parsing.

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 moderate complexity and absent annotations/schema descriptions, the description covers all essential invocation details: account scope, time-window parameters, optional filters, input formats, read-only safety, and return ordering. An agent has enough to call it correctly without further inference.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining all five parameters. It defines account_number format, ISO-8601 expectations for from/to times, max_results as an optional cap, and status with concrete examples.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List orders entered for one Schwab account within a time window.' It clearly establishes the plural, windowed scope and explicitly contrasts with mutating tools by saying it does not place, modify, or cancel anything, which distinguishes it from place_order and cancel_order.

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 gives clear context: use this to retrieve orders for a single account within an entered-time window, and the explicit read-only note tells the agent not to use it for mutations. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like get_order or list_transactions, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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