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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds value by detailing return fields (quantity, value, netAmount, etc.) and specific expense breakdown, which goes beyond the structured annotations. No contradictions found.

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?

Two paragraphs: first explains core functionality and return fields, second mentions bulk support. Information is front-loaded and efficient, though pagination parameters could be briefly noted.

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 no output schema, description adequately explains return fields and transaction types. Covers prerequisite and bulk usage. However, missing details on pagination behavior and potential error cases. Annotations cover safety profile sufficiently.

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 description carries the burden. It explains investment_id (via prerequisite) and investment_ids (bulk support), but does not describe page and page_size parameters. The explanation covers half the parameters, thus partially compensates.

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?

Clear verb 'Returns' with specific resource 'movement history for a specific investment position' and enumerates transaction types (BUY/SELL/etc.) and fields. Distinguishes from siblings like openfinance_list_transactions by focusing on investments, and explicitly mentions prerequisite to use after openfinance_list_investments.

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 states 'Use after openfinance_list_investments to get the investment_id', providing clear context for when to invoke. Also mentions bulk support with investment_ids. Does not explicitly list when not to use, but the context is well-defined.

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