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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the meaning of 'Ready' (awaiting review, not published), that 'Closed' post-trial access withholds bodies without asserting absence, and how tracked_link_state explains a null link while null clicks means unreadable. These are non-obvious interpretation rules an agent could not derive from annotations alone.

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 resource identity is front-loaded in the first sentence, then a tight sequence of field-interpretation clauses follows. It is dense and telegraphic without padding; the only near-wasted fragment is 'Read-only, free,' which duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation. Overall well-sized for the amount of semantic nuance it carries.

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 full burden of explaining returns, and it largely does: it enumerates the payload fields (evidence, source material, instructions, prepared_result), flags linked_article as reusable earlier work rather than a completed revision, and pre-empts two common misreadings (null link, null clicks). Error and permission behavior are unstated, but for a single-item read the coverage is strong.

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?

The schema already documents move_id at 100% coverage, including the 'from list_feed or get_standup' provenance that the description restates. The description adds no format, validation, or null-case detail for the parameter itself. Baseline 3 applies for a single fully documented parameter.

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 ('One growth move') and enumerates its contents (evidence, source material, instructions, prepared_result), so an agent can infer this retrieves a single move. However, no explicit verb is given in the description itself — 'view' only appears in the title — and it never differentiates from siblings like list_feed or get_standup beyond the singular/plural implication. Adequate but not crisp.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as list_feed, get_standup, review_move, or the many mutating *_move siblings. The only routing hint ('from list_feed or get_standup') is a parameter-provenance note that already lives in the schema, not usage guidance. The reader must infer the when-to-use case entirely.

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