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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: it returns movement history with specific transaction types and bulk support. No contradictions, and adds behavioral context beyond 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 concise, well-structured sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and output fields. The second adds usage context. No unnecessary words.

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?

For a list tool with no output schema, the description provides detailed output fields and transaction types, along with bulk support. Missing details: pagination behavior (though page/page_size params exist) and any prerequisites beyond investment_id. Overall adequate.

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 carry the burden. It explains investment_id (obtained from another tool) and investment_ids for batch, but provides no explanation for page and page_size parameters. This leaves two parameters with no semantic guidance.

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 investment positions, lists specific transaction types (BUY/SELL/TAX/INTEREST/AMORTIZATION/TRANSFER), and mentions fields like quantity, value, etc. It distinguishes from sibling tools by indicating it should be used after 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 states to use after openfinance_list_investments to get the investment_id and supports batched execution via investment_ids. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is clear.

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