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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: the step must be exactly one forward move, invalid steps are refused atomically (nothing is written), and expiring a finished engagement frees a free-tier slot. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or error handling, but the disclosed behaviors are substantive and go beyond the bare action.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediate constraints. Every clause carries meaning: the step sequence, the refusal rule, and the free-tier side effect. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the step logic and side effects but omits return value on success, potential errors (e.g., nonexistent agreement), and prerequisites. For a state-changing tool, this is a moderate gap; an agent might not know what to expect after a successful call.

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 75% (3 of 4 params described). The description adds meaning to the 'note' parameter (calls it optional) and reinforces the 'status' constraint (must be the next step). It does not repeat schema details but does add context for the undocumented note parameter, partially compensating for the gap.

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 verb ('Move') and a precise resource ('one agreement exactly one step') with the allowed states enumerated. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like agreement_create or agreement_get by defining the action as a single forward step in a status sequence, with explicit refusal of invalid moves.

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 implies when to use this tool—when advancing an agreement's status—and even states constraints like 'a skipped or backwards step is refused.' However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly say 'use this instead of X.' The guidance is present but implicit, not explicit.

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