Run transaction listing report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'Async', which is genuinely useful, but stops short of explaining the pending-reportId/get_report follow-up flow, and the waitSeconds schema field is left to carry that story alone.

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 sentences, scope stated first, no redundant wording. It is efficient but arguably under-filled rather than wasteful — the terseness costs clarity rather than saving it.

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 an 8-parameter async report generator with a high-coverage schema, the definition leaves meaningful gaps: it never explains how to retrieve results after an async return, and includeHolderNumber is undocumented. However, the core operation remains inferable, keeping it adequate rather than broken.

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?

With 88% schema description coverage, the schema already documents dates, issuerId, securityIds, waitSeconds, minThreshold, and movementTypes in detail. The description adds no meaning on top, and the one undocumented field (includeHolderNumber) is left unexplained in both places, so the standard baseline of 3 applies.

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 phrase 'Holding movements for securities over a date range' identifies the data domain and scope, but never states the action (generate/run a report) and only distinguishes itself from run_register_listing_report by noting identical async behavior, not by contrast in what data each returns.

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 only routing signal is 'same as run_register_listing_report', which communicates the async pattern but gives no criteria for choosing transaction listing over register listing, fund cash flow, or the other report siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., that issuer and security IDs must come from list_issuers/list_securities).

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