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

Annotations already declare read-only/non-destructive, but the description adds substantive behavior beyond them: bodies are withheld past an unpaid trial, tracked_link_state explains why a link is null (no_link, unavailable, withheld), and null clicks means unreadable rather than zero. The "free" note is minor value on top of readOnlyHint, but the access-gating and null-semantics disclosures are genuinely useful.

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 resource and its payload, then interpretation caveats, with no filler sentences. Some phrasing is telegraphic ("that is not absence", "null clicks means unreadable") and the list of guidance points is loosely ordered, but each sentence carries information.

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 and only one input parameter, the description bears the burden of explaining returns and does so for the highest-risk ambiguities: linked_article is earlier work not a completed revision, ready means awaiting review not published, and withheld bodies. It does not enumerate all returned fields, but the critical misreadings are pre-empted.

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% and the schema already states the move_id is a uuid sourced from list_feed or get_standup. The description adds nothing about the parameter itself, so the baseline of 3 for a fully documented single-parameter schema applies.

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 names the resource and enumerates its contents: a single growth move with "evidence, source material, instructions and prepared_result." That is specific enough to distinguish it from mutation siblings (revise_move, ship_move) and from list tools, though the retrieval verb is implied rather than stated.

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?

Usage context is implicit rather than stated: the move_id provenance ("from list_feed or get_standup") tells an agent where to get the input, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use framing or comparison to other read siblings such as get_output or get_standup.

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