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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful traits beyond that — values are flagged exact (from code) vs approximate (from a recording), and original source code only appears where licensing permits — but says nothing about response size or failure behavior for an unknown id.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then a dense but purposeful enumeration of payload contents, then three actionable rules at the end. The long parenthetical in the first sentence is heavy but every clause carries information; nothing is filler.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value and does so thoroughly, including the exact/approximate provenance distinction and license caveat. Only minor gaps remain, such as what happens with an invalid motionId or how large the returned code payloads can be.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description's mention of vanilla HTML/CSS/JS and the licensed original source loosely maps to the `code` enum values, but it adds no detail about what `none` or `both` produce beyond what the schema already states.

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 ("Get one motion entry") and enumerates exactly what the payload contains: properties, duration, easing/spring, delay, trigger, rationale, adaptation guidance, accessibility, code. This clearly separates it from search_motion, which only returns entries to pick an id from.

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?

Gives concrete downstream instructions — keep timings, scale distances, translate code to your stack — and the schema links the required id to search_motion. It lacks an explicit "do not use this to browse; use search_motion first" statement, but the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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