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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: the scope is the signed-in person's events, results are sorted oldest first, the event types are enumerated, and results are capped with an indication of how many were omitted. This adds real value not present in the annotations or schema.

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 description is three short sentences, each earning its place: scope and ordering, use case, and cap behavior. The most important identifying information is front-loaded.

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 the rich schema (100% parameter coverage), annotations, and output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke this correctly: event scope, ordering, event types, use case, and limit behavior. There are no critical gaps.

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, but the description adds semantic meaning for `since` by framing it as a 'since we last spoke' checkpoint and for `limit` by explaining the cap behavior and the 'more' count. This goes slightly beyond the schema's purely mechanical descriptions.

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 resource ('move events') and a precise verb/operation: retrieving events after a timestamp, oldest first. It also enumerates the event kinds and frames the tool's purpose as answering 'what changed since we last spoke,' which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like move_plan or move_tasks.

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 gives a clear, explicit use case: answer incremental 'what changed' questions without re-reading the whole plan. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the provided context is enough for an agent to route appropriately.

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