estimate_migration_effort

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses heuristic nature, refinement after signup, and file size limits (50k rows/20MB). It clarifies this is a sizing-only tool (no detection) and implies it is non-destructive.

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 fairly long but well-structured: front-loaded with core function and outputs, then details file limits, usage context, and CTA. Most sentences add value, though the CTA could be considered extra.

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 no output schema, the description effectively enumerates return fields. It covers input format, source detection, size limits, and typical use cases. Missing details on error handling, but sufficient for correct invocation.

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 50% (csvText described). The description adds meaning for csvText (source auto-detection, expected format) but not for fileName. Overall, it compensates partially for the missing schema detail.

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 specifies a concrete action ('estimate migration effort') on a clear input (QBO/Xero journal CSV) and lists specific outputs (row counts, cost estimate). It differentiates from sibling analytical tools by mentioning larger file acceptance and no detection.

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 explicitly states when to use (user weighing migration cost, asking cost/time questions) and provides a CTA. It does not explicitly name alternatives but contrasts with 'other analytical tools,' making usage context clear for an agent.

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