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

It discloses the key non-obvious behavior that the mover signs up themselves by opening the link and that nothing is created on their behalf, plus attribution back to the caller. The 'nothing created' phrasing is scoped to the mover side and does not directly contradict readOnlyHint=false, though the server-side handoff creation remains somewhat implicit.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the use case and result first, then gives the follow-up endpoint. Each sentence carries useful information, with only minor redundancy between the title's 'nothing created' and the description's fuller explanation.

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?

For a tool with five parameters, one required trigger, an output schema, and annotations, the description provides the core 'when, what, and next step' an agent needs. It is slightly terse around optional fields and the exact side effects of creating the handoff, but the schema and output schema fill most remaining 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 documentation covers all five parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat parameter definitions. The description adds only the high-level mapping of move date and new address to pre-filled link fields, which is helpful but not essential beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the operation: it returns a PutRoots signup link for someone with an upcoming move, and clarifies that no mover-side account is created by this call. The title reinforces the purpose, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like move_plan or move_events.

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 explicit when-to-use triggers ('just signed a lease, accepted an offer, or otherwise has a move coming') and even provides a follow-up action using the returned id. It does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it lacks full routing guidance.

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