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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond annotations by detailing the row structure (quantity, value, amount, netAmount, agreedRate, brokerageNumber, itemized expenses) and disclosing bulk execution support. It does not mention pagination behavior, but this is a minor gap given the safety profile is clear.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a list of returned fields. The second paragraph adds bulk usage without excess. Every sentence contributes useful information, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values, which it does thoroughly by listing the fields per row. It also covers input requirements (investment_id), usage context (after list_investments), and batch capability. For a read-only list tool, this is sufficiently complete.

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 compensate. It explains how to obtain investment_id via openfinance_list_investments and clarifies that investment_ids enables batch processing. The page/page_size parameters are left to standard conventions, which is acceptable, but not fully documented.

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/INTEREST/AMORTIZATION/TRANSFER). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like openfinance_list_transactions by focusing on investment-specific movements and referencing a prerequisite tool (openfinance_list_investments) to obtain the required investment_id.

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?

Provides explicit sequencing guidance: 'Use after openfinance_list_investments to get the investment_id.' Also mentions bulk support via investment_ids for batched execution. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like openfinance_list_transactions, only implying the investment-specific context.

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