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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety profile is clear. The description adds moderate context about what transactions are returned and bulk support, but does not disclose pagination behavior or rate limits. No contradiction 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?

Two short paragraphs, front-loaded with purpose, then return field details, then usage note. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or verbosity.

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?

Explains return fields well despite no output schema, provides prerequisite and bulk note. However, missing description for pagination parameters (page, page_size) and lack of error/limit information make it incomplete for full practical use.

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 must compensate. It implicitly explains investment_id (required, obtained from prior call) and investment_ids (for bulk). However, page and page_size are not described at all, leaving a significant gap for a list tool that likely supports pagination.

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 it returns movement history for a specific investment position with explicit transaction types (BUY/SELL/TAX/INTEREST/AMORTIZATION/TRANSFER) and lists many returned fields. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like openfinance_list_investments (which lists investments) and openfinance_list_transactions (general 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 clear prerequisite: 'Use after openfinance_list_investments to get the investment_id.' Also mentions bulk support with investment_ids. However, does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context with sibling tools provides indirect guidance.

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