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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals the polling behavior, the terminal status values, and the kind of data returned (counters, warnings, unimported pages). This adds meaningful behavioral context that the annotation alone does not provide.

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 a single dense sentence that packs the resource, return contents, read-only nature, and polling guidance without wasted words. It is front-loaded with the most important identity information first.

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 tool's simplicity, the absence of an output schema, and the two well-documented parameters, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the tool returns, when to poll, and when to stop polling. No critical behavioral or return-value information 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents jobId and applicationId sufficiently. The description adds contextual framing about import status but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 specifies that this tool retrieves the status of a website import, naming the exact fields returned (stage, progress, counters, warnings, unimported pages) and the actions that initiate the import. This distinguishes it from sibling import_website_knowledge, which starts an import rather than reporting its 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 gives clear operational guidance: poll this tool until status reaches DONE, DONE_WITH_ERRORS, or FAILED. It also identifies the context in which the tool applies by referencing the two import actions, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools by name.

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