loan_get_movements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the shape of the returned movement history, the nested loan/guarantee objects, LTV tracking, and a PRIVATE label that implies access restrictions. It does not go into sorting, pagination behavior, or error cases, but the annotations already cover the safety profile.

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 short and front-loaded: it leads with the purpose, specifies the return contents, then gives the filter and use case. 'with full details' is slightly redundant because the next sentence already specifies the details, but there are no unnecessry clauses overall.

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?

For a read-only movement-history tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the agent needs to call it: return content, movement types, nested object details, an optional filter, and its use case. It could be more explicit about output shape and ordering, but schema covers limit/offset and the description covers the tool's purpose well enough.

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 100%, and each parameter (jwt, limit, offset, order_id) is already documented with sensible descriptions. The description only repeats 'Optional order_id filter' and adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it stays at the baseline.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Get loan movement history with full details.' It then enumerates the loan-specific contents (movement types, nested loan/guarantee objects, fiat values, LTV tracking), which clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like loan_get_orders, earn_get_movements, or 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?

The description provides a clear usage context with 'Use to track loan lifecycle events' and notes the optional order_id filter. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus siblings like loan_get_orders or earn_get_movements.

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