Get Migration Asset ID Mapping

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true formations. The description adds useful context: the mapping applies to a completed migration and helps resolve source-course content references. It doesn't fully explain behavior on invalid or incomplete migrations, but with safety annotations present this is a reasonable level of disclosure.

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, both purposeful. The core function is stated first, then the use case. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 read-only lookup with 2 required parameters and no output schema, the description gives the necessary context: what the mapping is, when it applies (completed migration), and why it's useful. It doesn't specify the output format, but the purpose ('old-to-new asset ID mapping') makes the return shape fairly clear.

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% — both parameters are documented ('Canvas course ID' and 'content migration ID'). The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource as the 'old-to-new asset ID mapping' for a completed migration. It also explains the use case (resolving references to content from the source course), which makes the tool's purpose unambiguous even though no sibling tool shares the same name.

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 notes the mapping is 'for a completed migration,' implying the prerequisite state, and states it is useful for resolving old-to-new references. However, it does not explicitly explain when to choose this tool over alternatives (though no sibling appears to overlap). The context is clear but the guidance is implicit.

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