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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds that each entry carries a status and establishes the list-first workflow, but says nothing about pagination behavior, default page size, ordering, or what an empty result looks like — relevant for a paged read tool.

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, both earning their place: the first defines the resource, the second encodes the routing rule up front. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the routing rule is strong. However, for a tool with a nested filter object, pagination controls, and a required companyId wrapper at 25% schema coverage, the description leaves too much for the agent to infer about how to narrow and page results.

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 only 25%, so the description is expected to compensate, but it mentions none of the four parameters. The status filter (with a nine-value enum), pageSize (capped at 100), pageToken, and the companyId wrapper are entirely undocumented outside the schema, and the status enum values are never explained in user-facing terms.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it lists registered-agent move requests for a company and notes that status is included. It is distinguishable from registeredagent_get_request (single request) and registeredagent_get_agent, though it never names those siblings explicitly to complete the contrast.

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?

It gives clear entry-point guidance — "Call this FIRST when the user asks about a move" — plus an explicit anti-pattern ("never ask them for a request id"), which directly shapes agent behavior. It stops short of naming the follow-up sibling (registeredagent_get_request) for drilling into a specific request, so routing after the list returns is left to inference.

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