get_content_migration_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't repeat that. It adds value by explaining the snapshot nature ('Each call reads progress once') and terminal results including migration issues when available. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three concise sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the polling rule is stated compactly. No redundant or filler 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?

Given the output schema exists, the description covers the key behavioral aspects (polling and terminal results) well. However, the complete absence of parameter documentation makes it less complete than ideal for a 2-required-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description doesn't explain the two parameters (course_identifier, migration_id). While the tool name hints at what they mean, a new agent gets no explicit guidance on how to obtain or format these values, which is a significant gap at 0% coverage.

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 reads a single content migration and its progress snapshot. The verb 'Read' and resource 'content migration' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like create_content_migration by focusing on status retrieval.

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?

Provides explicit polling guidance: 'Call again only when poll_again is true', giving a clear condition for subsequent calls. It doesn't name alternatives, but the polling instruction is a strong usage signal that tells the agent when to call again.

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