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 what the operation returns, including the scope of findings (open and accepted manual findings) and the deadline metric. It does not address permissions, caching, or whether the scan is triggered or merely reported, which is why it falls short of a 5.

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; every listed element corresponds to something the caller receives. The comma-separated enumeration is slightly dense and could be broken into a clearer structure, but nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey the return shape, and it does so by naming the report's components. For a two-parameter read tool this is nearly complete, with only the absence of usage context keeping it below a 5.

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 already explains both server_id and the subtle organisation fallback in detail. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Returns a server's migration report') and enumerates the report's contents: classification, latest scan findings, ordered checklist, and days to the MCP deprecation deadline. That enumeration distinguishes it from neighbours like list_findings or get_trust_score, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no prerequisites are stated. The purpose implies usage (checking migration status before the deprecation deadline), but the agent must infer that context rather than being told.

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