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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It makes clear that this is an informational lookup by enumerating exactly what the content covers (each route's details and best-fit situation). It does not explicitly state 'returns' or confirm read-only behavior, but the content framing makes side effects unlikely.

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?

One tight, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core subject, the three named options, and the kind of information provided. There is no redundant wording or filler.

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?

For a simple no-input, no-output-schema informational tool, the description is nearly complete: it names the three routes and the dimensions covered. It could add an explicit 'returns' or mention the output format, but nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema documents that fully, so no parameter explanation is required. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4; the description adds nothing beyond confirming the informational scope, which is appropriate.

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 names a specific resource — the three migration routes off a legacy IIS server (Rehost, Rebuild, Replace) — and states what information is included. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools by topic, though it lacks an explicit verb and relies on the tool name for the 'get' action.

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 topic: an agent would use this when asked about IIS migration options. However, the description does not state when to prefer this over alternatives or exclude other tools, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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