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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already declared, the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the response is complete and never truncated or paginated, and non-declared names are refused by the node rather than approximated (a real failure-mode disclosure). It does not cover auth or rate-limit behavior, so it earns solid but not maximal credit.

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?

Three sentences, purpose front-loaded, and every sentence carries distinct information (payload contents, completeness guarantee, input provenance and error semantics). The first sentence's long em-dash clause is dense but not wasteful.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotation-driven pagination safety net, yet the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and guaranteeing no truncation or paging, plus the error path for unknown names. Only the input format details and any auth expectations are omitted.

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 0%, so the burden falls on the description, and it only partially compensates: it tells the agent to source `package` and `module` from suiGetPackage, but the `function` parameter and the regex constraints on all three fields remain unexplained. Useful provenance for two of three params, but incomplete against a 0% coverage 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?

States a specific verb and resource — fetching one Move function's signature — and enumerates exactly what the signature contains (visibility, entry flag, type parameters, parameter types, return types). It even frames the payload's purpose ('what a programmable transaction block needs in order to call it') and names the sibling suiGetPackage as the source of input names, so it is distinguishable from neighboring 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?

Gives clear context and a prerequisite: 'Take the package and module names from suiGetPackage,' which routes the agent correctly through the sibling set. It also states the failure condition for unknown names. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use or an alternative tool for a different query shape, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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