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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: a 25-row page cap, cursor-based continuation, owner scoping, and the fact that this is a live read that bypasses the cached preparation receipt. It stops short of stating freshness/rate-limit or staleness characteristics.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no padding, and the pagination instruction comes right after the resource statement. The 'up to25' typo is a minor blemish but not a structural problem.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description covers result shape (progress plus up to 25 event rows) and the nextCursor continuation field. The missing piece is the jobId contract, which leaves a small gap for a 2-parameter tool.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it only partially does: 'Follow nextCursor' explains how to use the cursor parameter, but jobId (a 40-char hex pattern) is never described, nor is where it comes from or that it is required.

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 verb and resource: reading current migration progress plus up to 25 event rows for the connected owner. It clearly sits in the prepare/get/commit migration triad, though it never names prepare_host_migration or commit_host_migration to make the distinction explicit.

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?

Implied usage is polling migration progress during a migration, and 'Follow nextCursor' hints at pagination, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing versus prepare_host_migration and commit_host_migration. An agent must infer the workflow position.

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