io_get_move

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavior beyond the purpose itself: it does not say what happens with an invalid/absent ID, whether the record is fetched live, or what the search scope is. For a read on an open-world API it discloses nothing extra.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the operation and its lookup key with no filler. It is efficiently sized for the task, though it is so terse that no additional useful structure is present.

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 single-fetch read tool with readOnly/openWorld annotations and a fully documented two-parameter schema, the description is enough to call the tool correctly. It omits anything about the returned payload or failure modes, but with no output schema that omission is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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%, and the schema itself carries a notably rich explanation of the compact/full 'view' parameter and the integer 'id'. The description adds no parameter meaning on top of that, so the baseline 3 for fully-covered schemas 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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('iOffice move request'), and a scoping key ('by ID'), which cleanly separates it from the io_list_moves sibling that returns many records. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling or the alternative it is not, so it lands at a clear-but-undifferentiated 4.

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 'by ID' phrasing implies you already have an identifier and want one record, which is weak-but-real usage guidance against io_list_moves. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of what to do when the ID is unknown, so the guidance is only implied.

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