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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it states results are flagged movements, not verdicts, gives limit bounds and default, explains filters, supported countries, and citation requirements. It does not mention authentication or pagination behavior, but the core behavioral semantics are disclosed.

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 usage condition and sibling alternative are front-loaded, followed by behavioral caveats, parameters, countries, and source. It is slightly cluttered by the endpoint URL and citation instruction, but every sentence contributes.

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 an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values, and it covers purpose, usage, filters, supported countries, and semantics sufficiently. Minor gaps remain around exact filter value formats and supported country casing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does for three parameters: `limit` range/default, `country` support for Ireland and united-kingdom, and `stat_key`/`geography_id` as narrowing filters. It does not specify formats or valid values for the filter parameters, leaving some ambiguity.

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: returns statistical movements databeat flagged as notable. It also distinguishes itself from `query_data`, which is for one area's full history, so an agent can choose correctly without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly names the triggering questions (what changed lately, which figures moved most, what is new) and the alternative for full histories. This is clear when-to-use guidance with a named exclusion.

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