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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context by enumerating return fields (quantity, value, netAmount, itemized expenses) and movement types, plus bulk execution support. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: purpose stated first, then return details, then usage prerequisite and bulk support. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or vague wording.

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 tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, movement types, field list, prerequisite for investment_id, and bulk option. It could mention pagination behavior or error handling, but the core information needed for invocation is present.

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 compensate. It explains investment_id (used to specify position) and investment_ids (bulk support), but does not mention page/page_size parameters. Since pagination params are common but still undocumented, this is adequate but incomplete.

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's function: 'Returns the movement history for a specific investment position' with specific movement types (BUY/SELL/TAX/etc.), which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_investments and list_transactions by focusing on investment position history and referencing investment_id.

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?

Explicitly provides usage context: 'Use after openfinance_list_investments to get the investment_id' and mentions bulk support for batched execution. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and a prerequisite, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or compare with list_transactions.

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