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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description reinforces with 'Reads only.' It adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: pagination defaults (50/200), cursor behavior, and that the source is the node's own owner index rather than a global indexer.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the type-filter semantics, then pagination, then the read-only note. Dense but every sentence carries usable information with no filler.

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 does the work of describing the return page shape, size, and cursor hand-off to expandResult. It stops short of naming the returned fields, but covers enough for correct invocation.

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% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning for the type parameter: a bare Move type matches any type parameter while a fully applied one matches only that instantiation. This goes beyond the schema's 'with or without its type parameters.'

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 owned objects) and clarifies the data source: 'out of the node's own owner index.' It is clearly distinguishable from suiGetObjects (fetch specific objects) and positions expandResult as the pagination companion.

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?

Explains the type-narrowing use case with a concrete example and routes the agent to expandResult when more pages exist. It doesn't explicitly contrast against the sibling suiGetObjects, so the when-not condition is left implicit.

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