db_get_migration_status

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and edge cases. It only states what is returned and does not address whether the call is read-only, what happens when no migration is ongoing, or how to interpret statuses.

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 definition is compact and front-loaded: one purpose sentence, then Args and Returns sections. No unnecessary detail or repetition of schema content.

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 one-parameter read-style tool with an output schema, the basics are covered. But with no annotations and a highly similar sibling (db_analyze_database_migration_status), the lack of edge-case/error context and explicit sibling boundary leaves the description only partially complete.

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 only declares database_id as a string, while the description's Args section explains that it can be a database ID or label, adding real selection guidance. For a one-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, this compensates for the structured schema's silence, though it remains minimal.

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 lead sentence names a specific action ('Get') and resource ('status of an ongoing database migration'), so an agent knows what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling db_analyze_database_migration_status, which could plausibly be chosen for the same task.

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 qualifier 'ongoing' implies this tool is for monitoring an in-progress migration, giving a weak but real usage signal. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as db_start_migration, db_stop_migration, or db_analyze_database_migration_status.

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