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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value by enumerating the diagnostic payload (failure step, error message, likely reason, next steps), which is the only source for return semantics since no output schema exists.

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, zero filler: the first states scope and trigger, the second lists the return contents. Purpose is front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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?

The description covers purpose, trigger, and return contents, which is sufficient for a read-only diagnostic tool with a fully documented two-parameter schema. The one gap is behavior when neither optional parameter is supplied, which is not addressed anywhere.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema, including that trip_id resolves the most recent non-clean import. The description adds no syntax or resolution detail beyond that, so the 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?

Specific verb ('Triage') plus resource ('failed, held, or partially processed email import') and an explicit statement of what the tool returns. It is clearly distinguishable from the nearest sibling, import_parse_text_preview, though it never names that sibling to reinforce the boundary.

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 trigger condition is clear: use this when an import has failed, is held, or processed partially. It gives no explicit when-not guidance or alternatives, and does not say how to obtain an import_id when one is unknown, but the usage context itself is unambiguous.

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