vk_get_migratio_21b0bedf6792

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that authentication is required, the endpoint usually does not require a request body, and that path/query parameters are top-level fields. It also clarifies the return semantics. It does not mention error behavior or exact response shape, but it's adequate for a simple 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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: endpoint, return value, use case, body requirement, parameter conventions, and authentication. No redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, when to use it, authentication requirements, and parameter handling. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds valuable extra context by explaining that path and query parameters are top-level fields and that original parameter names accept camelCase and snake_case aliases. This goes beyond the empty schema and prepares the agent for potential parameter usage.

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 action ('Get migration status') and specifies the exact raw endpoint (GET /migration/microsoft-todo/status), distinguishing it from the many sibling migration tools. It also explains the return value ('Returns if the current user already did the migation or not').

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 provides a concrete use case ('useful to show a confirmation message in the frontend if the user is trying to do the same migration again') and notes that authentication is required. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, though the Microsoft Todo specificity implies the scope.

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