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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context by detailing the returned fields (quantity, value, netAmount, itemized expenses) and confirming bulk execution support. This goes beyond the structured annotations, though it does not cover pagination behavior or error cases.

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, using short paragraphs with every sentence providing value. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then details output fields and usage sequencing. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool returns a list with pagination parameters, but the description does not mention default page size, pagination behavior, or limits on bulk investment_ids. It thoroughly describes the output fields but omits operational details needed for effective invocation, making it adequate yet incomplete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explains investment_id (obtained from openfinance_list_investments) and investment_ids (batch support), but page and page_size are left undocumented. This is partial compensation with clear gaps for pagination parameters.

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 specific transaction types (BUY, SELL, TAX, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like openfinance_list_transactions and openfinance_list_investments, which handle broader or different resources.

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 an explicit usage sequence: 'Use after openfinance_list_investments to get the investment_id.' It also mentions bulk support via investment_ids. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternative tools for non-investment transactions, so it lacks exclusions.

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