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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds context about what the tool returns (progress or full report) and the nature of the output (copied, left out, why). It does not contradict annotations and adds useful behavioral context.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. It is a single sentence that is informative without excessive wordiness.

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 simple tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is quite complete. It explains what the tool reports on and its relationship to import_site. Missing explicit details about output format, but with readOnlyHint and simple schema, it's adequate.

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 the 'site' parameter. The description implies the site is the one where the import was started, but doesn't add much beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is adjusted to 4 because it clarifies context but not required.

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 states that the tool reports on the status of an import started by import_site, including both progress and final report content (what was copied, left out, why). It distinguishes itself from import_site and other status tools like repo_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?

It implies usage after an import started with import_site, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. However, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer the right timing.

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