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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering safety, the description adds substantial behavior: the migration key is exposed until the old site first uses it and then masked, and the response includes old-site steps, open-move state, and movedAt after completion. These lifecycle and masking details are exactly the kind of context an agent needs beyond 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 a single compact sentence with the usage condition front-loaded and no filler. The colon-delimited list is dense but efficient; there is a minor readability cost from packing multiple returned fields 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?

Although an output schema exists and annotations cover read-only behavior, the description still supplies the key lifecycle caveats and returned-field list. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool returns and when it applies.

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?

There is only one parameter, serviceId, and the schema has 100% description coverage identifying it as the id of a service on the account. The description does not add syntax or usage details for serviceId, so it neither helps nor harms beyond the schema; baseline 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 identifies the resource and scope clearly: details for a WordPress site ordered as a move, including plugin address, migration key, old-site steps, state, and movedAt. It is specific enough to distinguish from generic wp_status via the 'ordered as a move' condition, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

It provides a clear usage condition, 'For a WordPress site ordered as a move,' which tells the agent when this tool applies. It does not state when not to use it or name a sibling alternative, so routing guidance is present but not exhaustive.

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