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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only, free.' It adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the tool never mints a tracked_link, it carries posture/posture_reason and agent_instructions that the agent must follow in the same reply, and it returns draft_kind options. This gives the agent a clear model of what the call will and will not do.

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 description is dense but efficient: it front-loads the purpose ('One growth move in full'), then lists the key contents in a compact flow. Every clause adds useful information, though the long multi-clause structure could be slightly easier to scan. It earns high marks for zero filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly: drafted body, draft_kind, evidence, timestamps, deliverable identity, rationale, receipt, acceptance criteria, constraints, voice samples, posture, posture_reason, and agent_instructions. It also covers when to use it and the follow-up action. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call and interpret the result correctly.

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 the single required parameter move_id is already documented as a uuid from list_feed or get_standup. The description does not add further parameter semantics, but with full schema coverage it does not need to. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb and resource: retrieving one growth move in full. It enumerates the move's contents (drafted body, evidence, acceptance criteria, posture, agent_instructions) and distinguishes itself from siblings by saying this door reports a tracked_link, never mints one, and by directing the agent to ship_move afterward. This leaves no ambiguity about what get_move does.

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?

The description explicitly says when to call it: 'Read it before writing any move, then ship_move once the founder is happy.' It also clarifies what this tool is not for by stating 'this door reports one, never mints one,' which distinguishes it from minting/writing tools like ship_move or propose_move. This is direct, actionable usage guidance.

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