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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: the exact composition of the response (program JSON, readable text, length, page, links) and a documentation URL for the program language. It does not mention failure modes for an unresolvable id, but the disclosure is solid 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the return value, then accepted identifiers, then the authoring workflow. Every sentence does work, though the inline docs URL and the full re-listing of identifier formats make it slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, yet it usefully previews them. Identifier formats, the language docs link and the authoring workflow together give an agent enough to call this correctly. Only error handling for a bad move reference is left unaddressed.

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% and the single parameter already documents the id, short name and slug forms. The description largely restates those forms, adding only the minor clarification that the last part of the page URL is acceptable. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the semantics.

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 and resource ('Returns one ready-made Jabbertoon move') and enumerates the payload: JSON block program, readable text, length, page and links. It is clearly distinguishable from list_moves (enumerate many), validate and share_link, which are named as downstream steps rather than aliases.

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 closing sentence gives an explicit workflow: fetch a move, change the program, check it with validate, then make a link with share_link. That routes the agent to the right siblings for the authoring path. It does not state when to prefer get_move over list_moves or what to do if the id is unknown, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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