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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two genuinely useful traits: this performs no mutation, and a move from free-to-Fit costs 5 credits. It says nothing about permissions, what 'shows the move' actually returns (no output schema exists), or what happens on an invalid transition.

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?

Two short sentences with the dry-run qualifier front-loaded; nothing is padded. The second sentence is grammatically tangled ('a contact the ICP check left free to Fit'), which costs a little clarity for its brevity.

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 three-required-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description leaves too much open. The preview's return shape and the meaning of search_id are exactly what an agent needs here and are absent.

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% for all three parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'Fit' hints at the group enum (fits/uncertain/unfit) and 'contact' hints at id, but search_id is never mentioned and no parameter's role or format is explained.

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 action ('Dry run. Shows the move') and the resource (a contact between groups), and the credit-cost angle distinguishes it from the mutating sibling sdr_set_person_group. The phrasing 'moving a contact the ICP check left free to Fit' is somewhat opaque jargon, but the core purpose is recoverable.

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?

'Dry run' implies it should be called before the real move, so the when-to-use is inferable. However, it never names sdr_set_person_group as the follow-up action, nor says when a preview is unnecessary or what to do with the result.

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