get_movement_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It details the response structure extensively, including field meanings, type classifications, and state codes, which helps the agent interpret results. It also mentions authorization scope. It does not discuss rate limits or error conditions, but for a straightforward read operation, this is sufficient.

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 well-structured with bullet points and clear sections, making it easy to scan. It is somewhat lengthy due to the detailed response field explanations, but this is justified because there is no output schema to rely on. The included tip is an extra but may be useful. Every sentence serves a purpose, though it could be trimmed slightly.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description compensates by providing a comprehensive breakdown of the response structure, including nested fields, enums, and behaviors. It also states the required scope. The lack of alternative tool references and parameter behavior beyond schema is a minor gap, but overall the description is complete for a read-only list operation.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters (limit, offset) with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions; it only mentions the response fields. Since the schema already handles parameter semantics, a baseline of 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?

The description clearly states 'Get list of account movements/transactions', identifying both the action (get) and the resource (movements/transactions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_accounts_list or list_paymentcards, which target different resources. The scope requirement adds precision.

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 implies usage: when you need to retrieve account movements, this is the tool. It also mentions the required scope (ALLOW_GET_MOVEMENT_LIST), which is a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it, so guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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