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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that — the default 7-day window and the per-move fields returned (ids, toward-aim, hard-part flag) — but says nothing about ordering, result limits, or behavior when only one bound is supplied.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the resource, then the range and its default, then the returned fields. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 simple two-optional-param read tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the definition covers purpose, default range, and return content adequately. It stops short of describing ordering or volume of results, which an agent may need to decide between this and the summary/gap tools.

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 both params document the YYYY-MM-DD format in the user's timezone. The description still adds meaning the schema lacks: that the range is optional and defaults to the last 7 days when omitted, which materially affects how an agent calls it.

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?

Names a specific verb (list) and resource (moves) and scopes it to a date range, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not name a sibling alternative, but the resource is distinct from list_sessions/list_devices/list_agents, so separation is largely self-evident.

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?

Usage is only implied: this is the read path for moves, with a stated default window of the last 7 days. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over adjacent analytics tools like summarize_day, find_gaps, next_steps, or get_path, and no stated exclusions.

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