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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes well beyond by disclosing provenance (European and US tech press, cut-off 2026-11-08), ordering (newest first), automatic classification, coverage caveats (both sides of M&A only when known), and that each result carries article URL, one-line headline, company slug and open roles. That is unusually rich disclosure for a 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?

The core identity is front-loaded and there is no filler, but the single long sentence is dense with parentheticals ("Europe first, US tech press since 2026-11-08", "both sides when known") that cost some scanning speed. Still, every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the shape of each returned move (URL, headline, company slug, open roles) and by naming the sibling to use for combination queries. Nothing needed to call it correctly or interpret results 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already expands every enum value and the country-code pattern, so the description adds essentially no parameter-specific detail beyond implying the default date window and geography. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does all the semantic work.

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 moves feed: what companies just did, worldwide" names a specific resource and then enumerates the exact event types covered (funding, acquisition, launch, expansion, partnership, milestone, layoffs), the geography and recency bias, and the source pool. An agent can tell instantly that this is not the hiring-signal or tender tools.

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?

"Use it to screen a market or a week; use search_signals to combine moves with who the company is hiring" gives an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it, plus a scope exclusion (executive hires not listed). It stops short of saying when this tool is the wrong choice beyond that one data caveat.

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