Move function signature

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: results are never capped or paged, and an unknown name is refused by the node rather than approximated — a non-obvious error semantic.

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?

Front-loaded with the returned shape, followed by the pagination note and the input-sourcing rule. Two sentences plus a short line, each carrying information; the em-dash enumeration is dense but not 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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields in prose, which is exactly what an agent needs. Combined with the unpaged guarantee and input-sourcing rule, an agent can call this correctly; only the error/refusal shape is left unelaborated.

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 coverage is 100% and all three params are documented with patterns, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds the sourcing rule (names must come from suiGetPackage) and the failure mode for undeclared names, which is modest value on top of an already-complete 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('One Move function's signature') and enumerates the exact payload the caller gets: visibility, entry flag, type parameters, parameter types, return types. This is more precise than the sibling suiGetPackage and makes the tool's boundary obvious.

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?

Gives a clear workflow precondition: take package and module names from suiGetPackage, and frames the purpose as 'what a programmable transaction block needs in order to call it'. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it versus alternatives like resolveContract or describeMethods, but the context is unambiguous.

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