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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: lists the transaction types, example fields (quantity, value, netAmount, agreedRate, brokerageNumber, itemized expenses), and notes bulk execution. It does not contradict 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 short paragraphs with no filler. The first sentence states purpose, the second details return fields, the third gives usage order, and the fourth covers 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?

With no output schema, the description enumerates the row fields and expense categories fairly thoroughly. However, it does not clarify pagination behavior or the exact structure of the 'expenses' object, leaving some ambiguity for a read-only tool.

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. The description explains investment_id (get from list_investments) and investment_ids (bulk), but completely omits page and page_size parameters. This is only partial compensation for the schema 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 the tool returns movement history for a specific investment position, enumerating transaction types (BUY/SELL/TAX/etc.) and specific fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like openfinance_list_transactions and 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?

The description explicitly instructs to use the tool after openfinance_list_investments to obtain investment_id, and mentions bulk support via investment_ids. This provides clear context, but it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it.

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