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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does more than restate the title: it reveals that the import has a phase ordering ('images then videos') and that counts are reported as imported/skipped/failed. This gives useful behavioral detail beyond the bare tool name.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the action, the originating async operation, and the returned status components. Every phrase contributes information, with no filler or repetition of the title.

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 status tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the required input provenance, the operation being monitored, and what the result contains. The agent has enough information to call it correctly immediately after an import is started.

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 already fully documents `job_id` as an import job id returned by `adsap_import_account_creatives` (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add much. It reinforces the connection to the import tool, but provides no new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, meeting the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check progress of a Meta historical-asset import') and names the exact resource and producing tool (`adsap_import_account_creatives`). It also itemizes what the status includes, which clearly distinguishes it from generic status/upload tools like `adsap_get_upload_status`.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for checking progress of imports started with `adsap_import_account_creatives`, giving the agent the relevant context. It does not mention explicit exclusions or alternative status tools, but for a single-purpose status check the usage context is clear enough.

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