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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe-read profile, and the description adds the useful default sort ('newest first by default'). It says nothing about volume limits, pagination behavior, or what a returned movement record looks like, so it goes only slightly beyond the annotations.

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 dense sentence with the resource and default ordering front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause carries information.

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 read-only, zero-required-parameter list tool with a fully documented schema and safe annotations, this is close to sufficient. The main omission is any hint of the return shape (which fields exist without 'fields') since no output schema is provided.

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 100%, with each of the seven parameters fully documented (date bounds, limit, start, order pattern, fields, warehouse_code). The description only echoes the warehouse and date filters, adding no syntax or behavior beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and even enumerates the movement subtypes (receipts, issues, transfers) with the vendor's Czech term 'skladovy-pohyb'. That is enough to separate it from list_stock_cards, list_bank_movements and list_cash_movements, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 sentence describes capabilities ('filtered by warehouse or dates') rather than when to select this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it, nor of list_stock_cards or list_records as the choice for inventory levels or other record types.

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