find_non_done_moves

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does clearly state the core selection behavior—only moves that are neither done nor cancelled—but it says nothing about ordering, limit behavior, filter combination, or whether the operation is read-only, leaving those details to the schema and output schema.

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 one terse sentence with no filler, and the core predicate is front-loaded. Its brevity is an asset, though it comes somewhat at the expense of parameter and usage context.

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 is simple, all parameters are optional and self-describing, and an output schema exists, so the description need not expand on return values. Still, the absence of any usage direction and parameter semantics leaves the agent to make assumptions against a large sibling list, making it adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention any parameter. It does not explain that limit caps the result set or that lot_id/product_id narrow the moves by lot or product, so the description fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('moves') and adds a precise status condition ('neither done nor cancelled'), so an agent can tell what subset is returned. It does not explicitly say these are stock moves or contrast with a sibling like search_stock_moves, but the status filter makes the intent clear enough.

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 gives no guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives such as search_stock_moves or get_stock_move_detail. No exclusions or preferred scenarios are mentioned, so the agent must infer from the tool name and sibling context when this is the right choice.

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