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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, so the description adds value by detailing return row contents (quantity, value, netAmount, expenses breakdown) and bulk execution support. It does not disclose pagination defaults or limits, but with strong annotations this is acceptable.

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 two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return-field details and a bulk note. Every sentence adds information without fluff or repetition. It is efficiently structured for quick scanning.

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 sparse parameter docs, the description covers essential details: what data is returned, how to obtain the required ID, and bulk capability. Small gaps include pagination behavior and mutual exclusivity of parameters, but these are not critical for basic invocation.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description is the primary source. It explains the meaning behind investment_id and investment_ids, but leaves page and page_size implicitly clear only by name. It also doesn't clarify whether investment_id and investment_ids are mutually exclusive. Partial compensation for a low-coverage schema.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Returns the movement history for a specific investment position' and enumerates the movement types (BUY/SELL/TAX/INTEREST/AMORTIZATION/TRANSFER). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by referencing openfinance_list_investments and focusing on investment-specific history rather than general transactions.

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 gives an explicit prerequisite: 'Use after openfinance_list_investments to get the investment_id.' This provides clear usage context. It does not explicitly list alternative tools to avoid, but the positive guidance effectively scopes the intended workflow. Bulk support is also mentioned as an additional usage mode.

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