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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes further: it explicitly states 'WRITES' and warns 'not safe to repeat blindly'. It also discloses that it moves no money and that payment recording follows the receipt path, which closes the award automatically. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 longer than average but every sentence adds value, and the key constraints (funder, requester-settled, WRITES) are front-loaded. It could be trimmed slightly, but the density of useful information justifies the length. No filler or repetition.

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 tool's complexity (multiple listing modes, alternative paths, money movement implications), the description covers all critical aspects: when it applies, what it does, what it doesn't do, and the write behavior. It even explains why verifier/automatic listings refuse the call. The only minor gap is the undocumented 'secret' parameter, but that is a small omission against the overall completeness.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter explanation. However, it does not explicitly describe the 'award_id' or 'secret' parameters. The award_id is implied by context but not named or defined, and 'secret' is completely ignored. This is a significant gap given zero schema coverage.

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 the verb 'move' and the resource 'awards' from awarded to payable, with precise conditions (funder only, requester-settled listings). It explicitly distinguishes itself from award_submission, making it easy for an agent to differentiate among siblings without inspecting schemas.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: funder and requester-settled listings only. It also says when NOT to use it (verifier/automatic listings) and points to the alternative tool award_submission for verifier verdicts, plus clarifies the money flow and receipt path. No ambiguity.

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