advbox_get_last_movements

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose operational details. It adds scope context but does not mention pagination behavior, default ordering, or that 'filter options' are actually not present in the schema beyond limit/offset. Some gaps remain.

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?

The description is a single efficient sentence, but the phrase 'with filter options' is misleading since no filter parameters exist beyond pagination. Minor inaccuracy slightly reduces conciseness.

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 read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides essential scope but omits behavioral details such as result ordering and defaults. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The input schema fully describes limit and offset with basic descriptions, so the tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema covers everything and the description doesn't mislead.

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 clearly states 'Get the latest movements across all lawsuits', using a specific verb and resource scope that distinguishes it from advbox_get_lawsuit_movements, which targets movements for a specific lawsuit.

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 phrase 'across all lawsuits' implies when to use this tool (when broad scope is needed), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusion criteria. The guidance is clear but implicit.

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