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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral details beyond these: it lists specific transaction types and describes the structure of each row (quantity, value, amount, expenses breakdown), which helps agents understand what the tool returns and its safe read-only nature.

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 well-structured sentences. The first sentence provides a clear overview of what the tool returns, and the second adds bulk support guidance. No redundant or unnecessary text; every sentence adds value.

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, the description details the return structure including specific fields (quantity, value, netAmount, agreedRate, brokerageNumber, and itemized expenses). This gives agents a good understanding of the output. The tool's complexity is moderate, and the description covers key aspects.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the key parameter investment_id (from prior tool) and the bulk alternative investment_ids. However, it does not describe page and page_size parameters, which are common pagination fields and could benefit from clarification (e.g., default values, limits).

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?

Description clearly states tool returns movement history for a specific investment position, enumerating transaction types (BUY, SELL, TAX, etc.) and key data fields. It distinguishes itself by directing users to use openfinance_list_investments first to obtain the investment_id, differentiating it from sibling tools like openfinance_list_transactions.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: use after openfinance_list_investments to get investment_id, and mentions bulk support with investment_ids. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, the guidance is clear and sufficient for most agents.

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