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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the trailing 'Read-only.' adds nothing structural. The description does add real behavioral context that annotations don't: it traverses *every* scenario in the account (potentially large, remote, non-deterministic under openWorld) and classifies each into three migration buckets. It omits cost/latency implications and what happens when no Make connection exists.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with no filler. The only waste is the terminal 'Read-only.', which merely restates the readOnlyHint annotation.

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-param, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the operation and the grading taxonomy but not the shape of the report — whether it returns per-scenario rows, aggregate counts, or remediation notes. An agent knows what it will get conceptually but not what to expect in the response.

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 there is no parameter semantics to convey and the schema is trivially complete. Baseline of 4 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 uses concrete verbs (read, grade) against a specific resource (every scenario in the owner's connected Make account) and names the outcome buckets (fully, partly, by hand). It is clearly distinguishable from the surrounding app/knowledge/agent siblings, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with any tool that might also inspect integrations.

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 use case is implied by the description — you call it to assess how much of an existing Make setup can be ported to Fine Structure. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, no prerequisite statement (e.g., a connected Make account must exist), and no alternative tool named.

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