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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds value by detailing the specific fields returned (quantity, value, amount, netAmount, expenses breakdown) and the bulk support feature. 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, with two paragraphs. The first paragraph front-loads the core purpose and return fields. The second paragraph adds bulk support. There is no wasted text, but a more structured breakdown (e.g., listing parameters) could improve readability.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the primary purpose, return fields, prerequisite, and bulk capability. However, it lacks explanation of pagination parameters (page, page_size) and does not describe the output structure or error handling, leaving minor gaps.

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?

The schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description explains the role of 'investment_id' and 'investment_ids' (bulk support), but does not clarify 'page' and 'page_size' for pagination. While it adds meaning for two parameters, it leaves two undocumented, which is insufficient for a 0% coverage scenario.

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 returns movement history for a specific investment position, listing transaction types like BUY, SELL, TAX, etc. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'openfinance_list_investments' by specifying that it is used after that to get the 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?

The description provides a clear prerequisite: 'Use after openfinance_list_investments to get the investment_id.' It also mentions bulk support via investment_ids, giving context for when to use certain parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives.

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