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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint as safe, and the description adds value by detailing the return structure (fields like netAmount, expenses) and bulk support behavior. No contradiction with annotations; the description enriches understanding of what the tool produces and how it operates.

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 extremely concise: two sentences cover purpose, use case, fields, and bulk support. Every word adds value, and the most critical information (prerequisite) is front-loaded. No unnecessary elaboration.

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 no output schema, the description helpfully lists the returned fields and provides prerequisite context. However, it omits explanation of pagination parameters (page, page_size), which are relevant for a list tool. Still, the core use case is well-covered.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the purpose of investment_id and investment_ids (batch) but does not describe page and page_size parameters at all. This leaves the agent uncertain about pagination, which is a gap for such a list tool.

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 explicitly states it returns movement history for a specific investment position, listing transaction types and key fields. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like openfinance_list_investments (which lists positions) and openfinance_list_transactions (general transactions) by focusing on investment-specific movement.

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 explicit guidance to use this tool after openfinance_list_investments to get the investment_id, offering a clear prerequisite and sequence. It also mentions bulk support via investment_ids, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternatives for cross-investment queries.

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