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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds value by detailing output fields (quantity, value, netAmount, etc.) and the variety of transaction types, which is not in the annotations or schema. It also mentions bulk support. It does not address pagination behavior or error handling, but these are less critical given the 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 short paragraphs. The first paragraph explains the core functionality and output; the second addresses bulk support. It is front-loaded with key information. A bulleted list might improve readability, but overall structure is efficient.

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 provides substantial detail about return fields and transaction types. It also covers the prerequisite (use after openfinance_list_investments) and bulk capability. It does not explain pagination or potential errors, but for a read-only listing tool with clear annotations, this is fairly complete.

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 required investment_id and the bulk investment_ids parameter ('Bulk support: accepts investment_ids for batched execution'). However, it does not describe page and page_size parameters, which are left entirely to the schema. This is adequate but incomplete, as pagination parameters are common but their meaning could be clarified.

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.) and output fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling openfinance_list_investments by requiring the investment_id obtained from that tool, and implies it is specific to investment transactions rather than 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?

The description explicitly says to use this tool after openfinance_list_investments to get the investment_id, providing sequential guidance. It also mentions bulk support for batched execution. However, it does not directly compare to alternatives like openfinance_list_transactions, though context implies differentiation.

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