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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: the per-move fields returned (id, description, length, page, editor/studio links), the fact that moves are not tied to one character and play across six subjects, and that some suit certain bodies better. It does not cover pagination, but is otherwise rich.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but the middle and final sentences are dense and packed with parenthetical asides that a reader must parse carefully. The semantic-search explanation is valuable but verbose, and the sentence length makes it harder to skim than a tighter version would be.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the description needn't detail return values, though it helpfully describes the per-move fields anyway. It covers scope, cross-character behavior, the search semantics and filter echo. It omits anything about result limits, ordering, or error cases, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the OR-of-words match logic, that synonyms map to move names (dance→Groove, scared→Cower, sleep→Breathe/Still), that notes flag meaning-based hits and feeling-linked faces, and that the applied filter is echoed in 'filters'. This is genuine added 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Lists the ready-made moves (animations) a Jabbertoon cartoon character can do') and immediately enumerates concrete examples (walk in, wave hello, hop, bow, slump, talk). It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_move by clearly being the catalog listing versus fetching a single move's program.

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 explicitly routes to get_move for a move's program, indicating when to use the sibling instead. It doesn't state exclusions for list_characters or list_looks, but the boundary with the most relevant alternative is clear.

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