Get migration map

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

Annotations readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false are reinforced and expanded by description: explains SemVer range resolution disclosures (match_type, resolved_via, match_note) and outcome when no data exists (found=false). No contradictions.

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 sentences: first states purpose and return content, second explains parameter behavior and edge case. No redundant words; highly efficient.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects, the description adequately covers return value details, parameter behavior, and failure case (found=false). No gaps for agent usage.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description adds value by explaining how non-exact versions are resolved and what fields are returned (match_type etc.), going beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states it returns the verified migration map for upgrading a package between two versions, listing specific contents (breaking changes, code, deprecations, URLs, date). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_breaking_changes or list_available_maps.

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?

Description explains parameter flexibility (concrete versions or SemVer ranges) and resolution behavior for non-exact lookups. It also advises on found=false case ('do not guess'). No explicit comparison to siblings, but context provides sibling list.

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