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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns mover name, branding, and config and restricts scope to quote, but it does not disclose behavior such as what happens for an invalid or missing key.

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 very short and front-loads the core action and output fields. It contains no filler, though the 'Scope: quote' fragment is terse and could be more integrated.

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 simple, read-only, zero-parameter tool, the description provides enough to invoke it: the purpose, output fields, and scope. It does not specify return shape or error behavior, but the low complexity and existing annotations reduce the need for more detail.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, so the empty schema needs no elaboration. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description's mention of 'the key' is contextual rather than a parameter definition.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve') and identifies the resource ('key' -> 'mover') as well as the returned fields ('name, branding, config'). The 'Scope: quote' fragment narrows applicability, though it is essentially identical to the title and does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools by name.

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?

'Scope: quote' gives implied context about when this tool is relevant, but the description does not state when to prefer it over alternatives or provide any exclusions. There is no explicit guidance such as 'use X instead when...'.

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