verify_migration_counts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the checks (comparing counts, detecting duplicates) and implies a read-only operation ('verify'), but it does not explicitly state that the tool does not modify data, nor does it mention required permissions or potential side effects. It adds some transparency but leaves gaps.

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 well-structured: a clear header, bulleted list of checks, and usage guidance. It is concise without being terse, and every sentence contributes value. No redundant information.

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?

The description lacks information about the output format. While it lists the checks performed, it does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a report, a table, a JSON object). With no output schema, this is a notable gap. However, the tool context is otherwise complete for the verification task.

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 schema covers all 6 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining how parameters are used in the verification flow (e.g., 'project_field for scoped queries'). This helps understand parameter interactions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: verifying record counts across three layers of a migration (source, staging, target). It lists specific checks, making the action very explicit. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'analyze_migration_for_testing' or 'reconcile_migration' by focusing solely on count verification.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'after a full migration to confirm data integrity' and 'after a test migration to see how many records were actually moved'. This provides clear context, though it does not mention alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it.

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