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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds genuinely new context: the required API-key scope (`imports:write`) and the fact that it's meant for polling a job started elsewhere, which matters for auth planning and invocation timing.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, usage second, auth scope last. Nothing is padded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries some burden to explain return values; saying it returns 'status and progress' is adequate but thin about the shape of that data. For a single-identifier read tool, the rest of the definition is complete enough to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 67%, with account and workspace well documented in the schema. The description only adds that the job is identified 'by identifier', and jobIdentifier itself has no schema description, so the description compensates marginally. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: fetch the status and progress of a CSV import job by identifier. It's clearly distinguishable from pm_list_import_jobs, though it doesn't name the sibling explicitly to differentiate.

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?

It gives a clear use case: poll a job that another client started via /csv or /csv/preview. That's a strong context signal, though it doesn't state when-not-to-use or point to pm_list_import_jobs as the batch alternative.

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