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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower; the description reinforces read-only and adds real value by describing exactly which state fields come back (kind, phase, progress, preview, connection existence) and by routing mutating actions to the dashboard. It does not cover auth requirements or behavior when no import exists for the domain, which keeps it 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?

It is front-loaded with the resource and the returned state, then usage cues, then the out-of-scope actions and a one-word read-only confirmation. The first sentence's dense parenthetical enumeration costs some readability, but every sentence contributes.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey what comes back and it does: can-start status, run kind/phase/progress, preview awaiting go-live, and WordPress connection presence. Combined with the dashboard pointer for mutations and the read-only annotation, an agent has enough to call this correctly for a simple one-parameter read.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the weight and baseline is 3. The description only indirectly adds meaning by clarifying that the domain identifies 'one of the customer's hosting sites' (i.e., a hosting site, not an arbitrary or external domain), which is a marginal supplement.

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 states a specific verb and resource: the status of a 'Move a site here' import for one hosting site, and it enumerates what the response covers (whether an import can start, current run kind/phase/progress, pending preview, WordPress connection). This is far more specific than the name alone, though it never names the adjacent siblings get_migration_status or list_my_migrations, so an agent must infer which one to pick when a user says 'migration'.

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?

It gives concrete trigger phrases ('is my site move done?', 'what is happening with my import?') and an explicit when-not: starting, going live with, or discarding an import is done in the dashboard, not here. It stops short of pointing at the sibling tools that cover list-level or migration-level views, so alternative selection is only partially resolved.

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