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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds rich behavioral context: lists the types of transactions returned, the fields per row (quantity, value, etc.), and the dependency on another tool. 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?

The description is concise, with two short paragraphs. The first states what the tool returns, the second gives a usage hint. No redundant phrases, front-loaded with key facts.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and safety annotations, the description provides adequate context: core functionality, return fields, dependency on another tool, and bulk support. Missing explicit pagination documentation, but overall complete for the agent to use correctly.

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%. The description explains the use of investment_id and investment_ids (bulk support) but does not mention page and page_size, leaving those as common but undocumented pagination parameters. Partial compensation for required params.

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, TAX, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning dependency on openfinance_list_investments for the investment_id and implying it's for detailed investment transactions, not 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 provides clear context: 'Use after openfinance_list_investments to get the investment_id.' and bulk support hint. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool vs alternatives like openfinance_list_transactions, though the context implies investment-specific usage.

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