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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses async processing with the { id, status:"importing"|"ready" } shape, plan gating (402 billing_required), zero credit cost with the entitlements path, storage-gauge effect, provenance preservation, cross-org byte dedup, and the 422 candidate_mismatch failure mode. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations like readOnly/destructive cannot carry.

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?

Front-loads the core action and result before layering on async, gating, cost, and error detail, so each clause carries operational information. It is dense and long, but no sentence is pure filler; slightly tighter grouping of the error/cost notes would help.

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 write tool with an output schema, it still supplies everything an agent needs to call it correctly: inputs, async follow-up via wait_job, downstream usage as a composition source, entitlement gating, cost, and recovery on failure. Nothing material is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the structured fields already document the body, giving a baseline of 3. The description still adds meaning by identifying candidateId's source (search_resources), the projectId pairing, and the dedup/provenance semantics of the import; it only omits the curated pack lane that the schema body description mentions.

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?

States a specific verb (import) and resource (a stock candidate keyed by candidateId from search_resources) and the exact resulting object (an ORG-OWNED media item in a project). This clearly separates it from siblings like import_media, select_candidate, and search_resources without the agent needing to open a schema.

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?

Gives concrete workflow context: pull candidateId from search_resources, pass projectId + candidateId, then poll wait_job(kind="media"), and re-run search_resources on 422 candidate_mismatch. It does not explicitly state when to prefer import_media or select_candidate instead, so it is strong but not a full when/when-not routing.

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