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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description adds two things they don't: the required auth scope (database:read) and the deterministic ordering (oldest first). It does not mention pagination behavior or per-record contents, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the ordering and scope constraints front-loaded where an agent will read them first. Nothing to trim.

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 five-parameter list tool with no output schema, an agent still lacks a description of what a migration entry contains (version, name, applied timestamp) and how paging terminates, neither of which the schema covers. The auth scope and ordering are good, but the tool's return surface is left entirely implicit.

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 100%, including defaults for branch, project_id, organization_id and the cursor contract, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that branch is the primary scoping axis but adds no format or meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific resource (migrations) and a precise scope qualifier ('already applied to a branch, oldest first'), which distinguishes it from siblings like migrations.apply, migrate.run, and schema.apply. It stops short of naming an alternative call this out explicitly, so it lands just below 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?

The phrase 'already applied' implies the read/inspect use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer this over branch.diff or schema inspection, and no prerequisites beyond the scope string. Usage is inferable but not taught.

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