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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, confirming safe read behavior. The description adds transparency by enumerating transaction types and returned fields (e.g., agreedRate, brokerageNumber, itemized expenses), and notes batch support via investment_ids. No contradictions.

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 concise paragraphs: first establishes purpose and return fields, second covers bulk usage. Could merge bulk mention without repetition, but overall efficient relative to information density.

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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and many transaction types, the description explains return fields, transaction categories, prerequisite (investment_id from list_investments), and bulk support. Missing pagination guidance and detailed batch semantics, but sufficient for most use cases.

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 main parameter investment_id and mentions investment_ids for bulk, but provides no details on page, page_size, or how batch execution works. Partial improvement over schema-only.

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 an investment position, listing transaction types (BUY/SELL/TAX/INTEREST/AMORTIZATION/TRANSFER) and specific fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like openfinance_list_investments and openfinance_list_transactions by focusing on transactions for a single position.

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 advises using this after openfinance_list_investments to get the investment_id, and mentions bulk support with investment_ids. While it doesn't list alternative tools, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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