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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the 'Read-only' sentence is partly redundant, but the description adds real behavioral context: the terminal status set, the polling loop, and the fact that warnings and non-imported pages are reported. It does not say what happens for an invalid or expired jobId.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and the returned payload, followed by the operational guidance. No filler or restating of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the response, and it does so by listing stage, progress, counters, warnings and failed pages. The only gap is error/expiry behavior for the job id, which an agent would otherwise have to discover at runtime.

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% and the applicationId fallback/error behavior (MCP_APPLICATION_REQUIRED) is already documented in the schema, so the description adds nothing about parameters. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource (status of a website import) and enumerates the returned content: stage, progress, counters, warnings, skipped pages. It also anchors the tool to the exact sibling calls (import_website_knowledge / import_website_into_knowledge_base) that create the job, so the agent can tell which flow it belongs to.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the calling pattern: poll this tool until status is DONE, DONE_WITH_ERRORS or FAILED, which tells the agent both when to call and when to stop. It stops short of naming when not to call it or what to do instead for edge cases (e.g. unknown/expired job ids).

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