plan_company_data_migration

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the critical behavioral trait: 'Read-only: nothing is written.' It also enumerates what the report contains (valid fields, mappable fields, dropped data, open questions). It omits auth requirements and any limits, but for a zero-parameter analysis tool the read-only guarantee is the trait that matters most.

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?

Front-loads the core action in the first sentence, then qualifies with the read-only guarantee and the report contents. Three tight sentences, zero filler, nothing repeated.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and it correctly focuses on what the plan is based on and that it is non-mutating. The one gap is the lack of explicit positioning against the apply_company_data_migration sibling, which matters in a cluster of migration-related tools.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter surface to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. The implicit target files are named in prose, which is a small bonus but not a substitute for real parameter documentation.

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: it proposes a field mapping between company_profile.json and financials.json, and clearly frames itself as a planning/analysis step. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling apply_company_data_migration or inspect_company_data, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the mention of 'questions that must be answered before the data can be migrated' situates it as a pre-migration step, and it hints at sequencing before apply_company_data_migration. But it never names an alternative tool or states the explicit condition for choosing this over inspect_company_data.

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