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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations by disclosing server-side visibility filtering (players see only moves they are listed on; GM and Admin-Mode admins see all), the full read-permission model, and the truncation behavior with its descriptionTruncated flag. This is exactly the auth- and content-filtering context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the detail option and permission rules. Dense and mostly earned, though the detail/truncation explanation partially duplicates the schema description.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is not required, and the description covers filtering, permissions, and truncation. Pagination behavior for a list endpoint is not mentioned, a minor gap given the rich annotation and schema coverage.

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 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented, and the description largely restates the detail enum's truncation semantics rather than adding new meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('the moves grouped under one session'), and pins the scope to a single session/chapter, which implicitly separates it from the campaign-wide play_list_campaign_moves and the single-move play_get_move. An agent can identify the tool's domain without opening the schema.

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?

Explains the detail='summary' option and who may read the data, giving clear context for invocation, but never routes the agent to an alternative (e.g. campaign-level listing or single-move retrieval) or states when this tool should not be used. Usage is implied rather than contrasted with siblings.

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