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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note that results are scoped to a project_ref, no auth/permission context, no indication of what the history contains.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean, but the brevity reads as under-specification rather than true conciseness given everything left unsaid.

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 and no parameter documentation, the description should carry more of the load for a tool that takes 8 inputs. It says nothing about return shape, filtering, or how the migration history is scoped, so an agent cannot call it confidently.

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 0% across 8 parameters, so the schema provides names and formats but no semantics. The description compensates for none of this — it never mentions project_ref (the sole required parameter) or any of the beon_* context fields, leaving the agent to guess what each input means.

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?

"Inspect migration history" names a resource and a verb, so the general intent is inferable, but "inspect" is weaker and vaguer than the tool name's "list" and gives no sense of scope (project-wide? branch? paginated?). It also does not distinguish this read operation from the sibling supabase_apply_migration, which writes a 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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as supabase_apply_migration or the branch-related siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The agent is left to infer usage purely from the name.

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