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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only, free' is largely redundant. The real added value is the data-semantics disclosure: 'Ready means awaiting review, not published', 'Closed post-trial access withholds bodies without asserting absence', and how to interpret tracked_link_state and null clicks. With no output schema, these interpretation rules carry genuine behavioral weight.

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?

Compact and front-loaded — it leads with what the move contains before the finer interpretation rules. No filler sentences. A few fragments ('null clicks means unreadable') are terse to the edge of ambiguity, which slightly hurts readability.

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 must explain the returned fields, and it does: it enumerates the payload shape (evidence, source material, instructions, prepared_result), clarifies linked_article, and decodes the ambiguous status/null fields. For a one-parameter read tool, nothing essential is missing.

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 100% with a single parameter, and the schema already documents 'Move id (uuid), from list_feed or get_standup'. The description repeats the same provenance without adding format or validation detail. With high coverage, the baseline of 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?

States the resource and its contents ('One growth move: evidence, source material, instructions and prepared_result'), making it clear this returns a single move rather than a list. It implicitly differentiates from siblings by naming list_feed/get_standup as the id source, though it never uses an explicit retrieval verb. Clear enough to distinguish it from list_feed and the many *_move mutation siblings.

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?

It tells the agent where move_id originates (list_feed or get_standup), which is useful routing context for the prerequisite step. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternative guidance (e.g. when to call get_move versus review_move or get_standup). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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