io_get_move

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read, so the description's burden is lightened, yet it adds nothing beyond the name: no not-found behavior, no statement about what a missing/invalid ID returns, and no mention of the view-dependent response shape. For a read tool with annotations covering safety, this is thin.

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 with zero filler. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 get-by-ID read with full schema coverage and a readOnlyHint annotation, the essentials are present. But with no output schema, the description says nothing about the returned structure or what happens on an unknown ID, leaving a small but real gap.

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 view enum is documented in detail (compact vs full, field stripping behavior). The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, so the 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 ("Get a single iOffice move request by ID"), so the agent knows it retrieves one move request. However, it offers no differentiation from the many sibling getters (io_get_mail, io_get_maintenance_request, io_get_reservation), which all share the identical pattern.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus io_list_moves or the related move operations (io_create_move, io_update_move, io_approve_move, io_cancel_move). The "by ID" phrasing implies the single-record use case, but no alternative or condition is named explicitly.

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