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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context by detailing the specific fields returned (quantity, value, amount, netAmount, etc.), which goes beyond annotations. However, it does not mention pagination behavior despite having page/page_size parameters.

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 two sentences plus a line, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and return data, then adds usage guidance and bulk support. Every sentence earns its place.

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 compensates by listing many output fields. However, it lacks explanation of pagination (page, page_size) and does not mention error cases or behavior for invalid investment_id. For a tool with 4 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description is adequate but incomplete on pagination.

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%, so the description must document parameters. It mentions investment_id is needed from the prerequisite tool and implies investment_ids for bulk support, but page and page_size are completely undocumented. This leaves the agent without guidance on pagination, which is a significant gap.

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 a specific investment position, listing the types of movements and the fields returned. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool openfinance_list_investments by specifying it should be used after that tool to obtain the investment_id. The description also notes bulk support, making its scope clear.

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 'Use after openfinance_list_investments to get the investment_id,' providing a clear prerequisite and order of operations. It also mentions bulk support via investment_ids. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the context is sufficient for correct selection.

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