loan_get_movements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the return content (types, nested objects, LTV tracking) and notes optional order_id filter. No mention of side effects or destructive actions, which is acceptable for a read operation. The [PRIVATE] tag hints at access restrictions but is not detailed.

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?

Three sentences covering purpose, return details, and usage hint. Front-loaded with the key action and objects. No fluff, though the [PRIVATE] marker could be clarified.

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 adequately summarizes return fields and LTV tracking. Pagination is covered by parameters. It gives enough context for an agent to understand the tool's scope and use it for tracking loan lifecycle events.

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 100%, and each parameter already has descriptive names and schema descriptions (e.g., 'Filter by loan order UUID'). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond referencing order_id filtering. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states 'Get loan movement history' and enumerates return types (approve, repay, liquidate, interest). It distinguishes from sibling tools like loan_get_orders by focusing on movement history, but does not explicitly contrast with similar movement tools (e.g., wallet_get_movements).

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?

Includes 'Use to track loan lifecycle events' as usage guidance, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references. The context is clear but no exclusions are given.

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