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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already indicate a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context by detailing the returned transaction types, field names (e.g., agreedRate, brokerageNumber, expenses with sub-items), and bulk support. This enriches understanding beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 brief and well-structured: first paragraph defines functionality and output, second paragraph provides usage guidance. No redundant sentences; every sentence adds value. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand.

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?

While the description covers the return data well and provides usage context, it lacks explanation of pagination parameters (page, page_size) and the overall response structure, especially since no output schema exists. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this is a moderate gap but manageable given the simplicity of the 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?

Schema coverage is 0% (no property descriptions). The description only partially compensates: it mentions investment_id implicitly (required) and investment_ids for bulk, but ignores page and page_size parameters entirely. For a listing tool, pagination handling is critical; omitting these leaves a significant gap in parameter understanding.

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 uses a specific verb 'Returns' and resource 'movement history for a specific investment position', listing transaction types (BUY/SELL/TAX/INTEREST/AMORTIZATION/TRANSFER) and fields (quantity, value, amount, etc.). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like openfinance_list_investments and openfinance_list_transactions by specifying it's for a specific investment and includes detailed financial data.

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 states 'Use after openfinance_list_investments to get the investment_id', providing a clear prerequisite. It also mentions bulk support with investment_ids. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives for similar transaction listings, though the sibling context makes this somewhat implicit.

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