get_site_moves

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure, but all it adds is that the tool returns historical move data. It does not state what a move/migration contains, whether the result is a list or single record, whether there are limits or ordering, or what side effects (if any) exist. The read-only nature is only implied by 'Get'.

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 a single focused sentence with no superfluous words and it front-loads the operation. It is appropriately concise, though it does not add any additional structured detail that would help with sibling differentiation.

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?

Despite having an output schema and only one required parameter, the description is too thin to be fully self-sufficient: it lacks when-to-use guidance, parameter meaning, and any elaboration of what constitutes a 'move' or 'migration'. An agent could probably call it correctly, but it would rely on inference and the tool name rather than the description.

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 input schema provides no description for site_url and schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'site moves/migrations' hints that site_url identifies the site of interest, but the description never explicitly explains how the parameter is used or what formats are expected.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and a distinct resource ('history of site moves/migrations') that does not appear in any sibling tool name, so an agent can tell it apart from the other get_* tools. It stops short of a 5 because 'moves/migrations' is left undefined and the operation's relationship to the site_url parameter is not stated.

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 gives no guidance on when this tool should be used instead of alternatives such as get_sites, get_url_info, or get_crawl_settings. There is no context, prerequisite, or exclusion, so an agent is left to infer the use case from the name alone.

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