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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, it discloses important behavior: visibility filtering of child scenes, restricted moves returning 404 to unauthorized players, and campaign membership requirements. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 sentences carry all necessary information with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, followed by return details and then authorization/error behavior.

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 a single-parameter read operation with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential non-schema facts: payload contents, visibility filtering, 404 semantics, and membership restrictions. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 single parameter has 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents id as a Mongo _id. The description only repeats that this is a by-id fetch and adds no new parameter-level meaning, which matches the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch one move by id'. It also details what is returned (full markdown body and a children array), which distinguishes it from sibling list tools like play_list_campaign_moves and play_list_session_moves.

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 clearly implies when to use it: when you have a move's id and need the full move object or its child scenes. It also gives access context by requiring caller membership in the campaign. It does not explicitly name alternative list tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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