panelica_migrations_get_v1_migrations_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the required scope 'accounts:read' and explicitly states 'Read-only,' providing useful auth context beyond what annotations supply. No contradiction exists.

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 extremely concise at five short lines, with the core purpose front-loaded. Every line adds relevant information: HTTP method, category, required scope, and read-only status.

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 simple one-parameter read endpoint with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It lacks only minor context about what a migration is or how to obtain its ID from the list endpoint.

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 100%, and the id parameter is documented as a path parameter. The description's HTTP path repeats that it is in the path but adds no new semantic meaning, so the schema carries the load.

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 states 'Get migration' with the HTTP path GET /v1/migrations/:id, clearly identifying it as a read operation to retrieve a single migration by ID. It is distinct enough from sibling migration endpoints like list or export, 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus listing migrations or other migration-related endpoints. It includes category and scope context but lacks any exclusion or alternative-selection criteria.

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