moving_data_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the substance of the response (versions, dates, URLs, verified/unverified counts, staleness warnings) plus the set of files covered. It says nothing about authentication, refresh cadence, or failure behavior, so it is informative but not complete for a no-annotation tool.

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 no filler; the enumerations are dense but each item is substantive output detail rather than padding.

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 zero-parameter read-only reporting tool with an output schema present, the description covers what the tool is about and what it returns; return-value specifics are legitimately left to the output schema. Only the when-to-use dimension is thin.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4; there is no parameter surface that the description could clarify or neglect.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Report') with a clearly scoped resource ('the moving data files') and enumerates the exact fields reported (versions, as-of dates, source URLs, row counts, staleness warnings). This implicitly distinguishes it from the FBA/measure/room siblings by domain, but it never names an alternative the way a top-tier definition would.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as moving_cube_sheet_lookup or the estimate tools; the data-provenance use case is only inferable from the field list. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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