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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description ends with 'Read-only,' confirming consistency. Beyond that, it discloses behaviors the annotations cannot: the deliberate exclusion of drafted bodies, the live-only default filtering, the background 'deep scan fills the board' context that explains why since is useful, and the semantics of each posture value (act, draft_only, founder_voice).

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 efficiently ordered: What is returned → when to use it → what is deliberately missing → how to filter. Every sentence earns its place, including the posture clause and sibling pointer. It runs slightly long due to the complex posture enumeration, but there is no dead weight or repetition.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description compensates well: it enumerates all payload fields, explains the posture values, states exclusions (draft bodies), provides sibling routing (get_move), covers default filtering behavior (live-only), and gives the async context (deep scan filling the board). With annotations covering the safety profile and the schema covering parameters, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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 coverage is 100% and each parameter (since, verbosity, include_resolved) already has a detailed schema description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description lightly reinforces include_resolved and since behavior and adds the 'deep scan fills the board' rationale, but it does not meaningfully extend what the schema already documents about parameter syntax or semantics.

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 specific resource ('the ranked backlog of growth marketing moves prepared for this product'), its scope across SEO/AI visibility/competitors/distribution, and the exact fields returned (title, why, area, status, rank, has_draft, posture). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_move by stating the drafted BODY is not here and directing the agent to get_move for it. An agent can clearly tell what this tool does and how it differs from other list_* tools.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use directive ('Read it before improvising growth work of your own'), names the alternative for a specific condition ('call get_move for the one you are working on'), and explains when to set filters ('Live moves only unless you pass include_resolved; pass since for what is new'). The routing logic between list and detail tool is unambiguous.

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