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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral nuance: results include additions, not just replacements, and each result should be resolved with get_motion. It says nothing about result volume, ranking, or whether suggestions depend on the 'sources' filter, so with annotations carrying the safety burden a 3 fits.

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 core output behavior is front-loaded in the first clause, and the 'Then get_motion each one' instruction closes efficiently. The parenthetical 'from a screenshot, list the parts you see' is inserted mid-sentence and interrupts the flow, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety. However, all five parameters are optional and the description never states the minimum input required or what happens if nothing is supplied, which is the main thing an agent could get wrong here.

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 each of the five parameters is already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds modest value by framing the three input modes (elements, a description, or Screenrove screen ids) and how to derive elements from a screenshot, but it never mentions the 'sound' or 'sources' parameters that the schema exposes.

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: it takes UI parts and 'returns motion entries and sounds that would improve each part.' The added clause about returning 'new touches it doesn't have yet (additions), not only replacements' sharpens the distinction from a plain search. It names get_motion as the follow-up, so an agent can separate it from siblings like search_motion or get_motion_guidelines, though the sentence is dense.

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?

'Then get_motion each one' gives an explicit chaining instruction, and 'from a screenshot, list the parts you see' tells the agent how to prepare input for a common case. There is no guidance on when NOT to use it (e.g., versus search_motion for an existing library lookup), which keeps it below a 5.

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