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

Annotations already convey readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds detail about the returned data (fields like quantity, value, netAmount, expenses) and bulk behavior. 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?

Two paragraphs, front-loaded with purpose and output details. Efficiently conveys key information without unnecessary words. Could combine bulk mention more succinctly, but overall clear.

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 output fields sufficiently. Mentions prerequisite and bulk support. Lacks specification of pagination behavior (e.g., page defaults, page_size limits), but overall complete for a read-only list tool.

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%. Description explains investment_id and investment_ids, but page and page_size are not mentioned at all. Since these are pagination parameters, their semantics (defaults, limits) are missing. For a tool with 4 parameters, the description only partially adds meaning.

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 (BUY, SELL, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like openfinance_list_transactions by specifying it operates on a single investment. References prerequisite tool 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 advises 'Use after openfinance_list_investments to get the investment_id.' Mentions bulk support via investment_ids. Does not provide explicit negative guidance, but the context of requiring an investment_id implies when not to use.

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