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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: page numbering starts at 1, page_size defaults to 50 and is capped at 100, and the response carries has_more/truncated when rows exceed the page.

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?

Five short sentences, each delivering a distinct fact (scope, status values, movement_type values, paging rules, feature gate), with no repetition or filler. Front-loaded with the core purpose before the parameter detail.

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 usefully discloses the pagination envelope (has_more, truncated) and the feature prerequisite. It leaves sort order and the meaning of a stock movement unexplained, but an agent has enough to call it 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden and largely does: it names the allowed status values, the movement_type values, the 1-based page origin, and the default/cap for page_size. It stops short of saying how filters combine or what ordering is applied.

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 a specific verb+resource ("List stock movements") scoped to the organization, which is clear enough for an agent to recognize a read/list operation. It does not, however, differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as list_stock or get_stock_overview, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 gives a prerequisite ("Requires the stock plan feature") which is useful context for whether the call can succeed. It never says when to choose this over list_stock, get_stock_overview, or the create/post/cancel movement siblings, so the usage decision is only implied.

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