Get cloud import compatibility

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable context about authentication ('Anonymous preflight endpoint; no project scope or credential needed') and specifies the exact information returned. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand side effects and requirements.

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 concise three-sentence paragraph. The first sentence states the core purpose and return values, the second clarifies access requirements, and the third provides a clear usage recommendation. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers purpose, access prerequisites, and return data, and provides a recommended usage context. There are no gaps that would leave an agent confused about when or how to invoke this 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameter semantics, and it correctly focuses on behavioral and usage aspects. No parameter documentation is missing.

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 uses a specific verb phrase 'Check whether a cloud export package can be imported' and clearly identifies the resource and the operation's purpose. It also names the exact return values (running app version, latest applied migration, accepted schema versions), distinguishing it from any sibling read-only tools.

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 includes explicit guidance: 'Use before preparing a migration to confirm the export schema is still supported.' It also notes the endpoint is anonymous and requires no project scope, which clarifies the context of use. However, it does not mention any alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, so it stops 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.