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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that content is 'reproduced verbatim from the website,' which adds credibility but doesn't mention that it's a read-only operation, any pagination behavior, or potential response format. For a simple retrieval, this is acceptable but not rich.

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, well-formed sentence that front-loads the content and source without any wasted words. It efficiently conveys the essential purpose and provenance.

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?

The tool is simple, with both parameters documented in the schema. However, the description doesn't explain the output format or any edge cases, and with no annotations or usage guidance, an agent might miss when to use it. It's adequate but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters (limit and query) fully described. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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 clearly states a specific verb (get), a resource (published questions and answers), and a precise scope (legacy IIS, classic ASP and SQL Server website migration). It distinguishes from siblings like get_migration_paths or get_pathfinder_questions by the explicit content type and topic.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It doesn't mention alternatives or conditions that would make this the appropriate choice, leaving the agent to infer based on the topic alone.

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