get_migration_guidance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful provenance and non-inference context, but does not describe output shape, failure behavior, or how version resolution works beyond the schema.

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 focused sentences with no filler. The core action and scoping are front-loaded, and the caveat about non-inference 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?

Adequate for a read-only, idempotent lookup with useful annotations, but there is no output schema and the description does not explain what the returned guidance looks like or what happens when no guidance is found. Version/channel interaction is also left 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 67%, with channel and version already documented. The tool description adds meaning by mapping name to 'exact legacy API name' and version to 'target build', but it does not address the channel parameter or further clarify accepted name formats.

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: 'Get ... community migration guidance', and further scopes it to an exact legacy API name and target build. The second sentence, 'This is not inferred from catalog absence', helps differentiate it from catalog-driven lookup/search siblings.

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?

Provides clear context: use it when you have an exact legacy API name and target build and need separately sourced community migration guidance. It also draws a boundary by saying guidance is not inferred from catalog absence, but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use them.

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