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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds useful content scope (free of charge, 24–48h, covers what cannot move), but it never clarifies whether the response is a static informational page or a personalized quote, which is the main behavioral ambiguity given the 'quote' naming.

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 sentence with the highest-value facts (cost, duration) front-loaded and no filler. The long parenthetical enumeration is dense but run-on enough that it reads as a list stuffed into one sentence.

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 one optional param, full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description needs only to tell the agent what the answer contains — which it does comprehensively. The remaining gap is the return shape (static doc vs. generated quote), which matters somewhat given the tool's name.

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?

Only one optional parameter (lang) and schema description coverage is 100%, with the enum documented in the schema itself. The description says nothing about language handling, so baseline 3 applies — the schema does all the work.

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 enumerates exactly what the tool answers: cost, timeline (24–48h), what moves (files, databases, email), requirements, exclusions, and how to request the migration. That is a specific resource with concrete scope, and the sibling names (pricing, plans, domain checks) make it obvious this is the migration-questions tool rather than a pricing tool. It stops short of a clean opening verb like 'Returns', so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the content scope — an agent asking about moving a site will recognize this as the right tool. However, it never explicitly routes against siblings such as compare_plans or get_plan, nor does it state when this tool is the wrong choice (e.g. for pricing-only questions).

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