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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description adds real value by spelling out the return payload (counts per source, last 10 runs with status and cost, next_cursor) and flagging the call is 'Free' — a billing trait absent from the annotations. It stops short of noting rate limits or output format, but the resumption cursor behavior is a useful disclosure.

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?

A single dense sentence with the core purpose front-loaded ('What the imports brought in so far, per source'), followed by an enumerated return payload. Efficient with no filler, though the semicolon-chained clause list takes some parsing.

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 and no parameters, the description carries the full burden and discharges it: it enumerates the metrics returned, the source key formats, the run-history window, and the continuation mechanism. An agent knows what it will get back before calling.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is required and instead spends its words on outputs.

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 precisely what the tool returns: per-source import counts (companies, contacts, deals, notes, tasks, tickets, ticket replies) plus the last 10 import runs. This is clearly a read-only reporting tool, distinguishable from the sibling import_csv / import_from_hubspot / import_from_pipedrive / import_from_zendesk tools that actually perform imports.

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?

Implicitly tells the agent when to call it — to see what imports have brought in and to obtain the next_cursor for an import that stopped early. There are no explicit exclusions or 'when not to use' statements, and no sibling is named as an alternative, but for a zero-parameter status tool the usage context is clear.

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