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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds beyond this by stating it 'Returns instructions' and that each guidance includes documentation from both the other provider and PropelAuth. This clarifies the read-only, instructional nature and gives insight into the output, aligning with annotations.

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?

The description is two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and add one relevant detail about the output. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter schema, existing annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior and purpose. It could more explicitly define the `migrating_from` parameter, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

Schema coverage for the single parameter `migrating_from` is 0%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly references the parameter via 'such as Clerk,' but does not explicitly explain that `migrating_from` specifies the source provider or what a null value means. The description adds some meaning but not enough to fully cover the gap.

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 the tool 'Returns instructions for migrating users and organizations to PropelAuth from other auth providers, such as Clerk.' It uses a specific verb ('returns instructions') and names the resource (users and organizations) and source (other auth providers), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on integration or specific backend/frontend 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: when migrating user and organization data from providers like Clerk. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclude other scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.

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