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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior beyond that by enumerating the status values and the returned payload (counters and errors), which matters because no output schema exists. Polling cadence and which statuses are terminal are left implicit.

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 action and resource, followed by the return contents. Every phrase carries information; there is no filler or repetition of the title.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the returned shape (status, counters, errors) and the full status vocabulary, which is exactly the information an agent would otherwise lack. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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 coverage is 100% and the single job_id parameter is documented as 'The jobId returned by import_from_provider.' The description reinforces the same provenance but adds no format, validation, or retrieval semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 ('Read the current status of an import job') and ties it directly to the tool that creates such jobs, import_from_provider. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like cancel_import or import_from_provider without opening any schema.

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 phrase 'created via import_from_provider' gives clear context for when this tool applies (poll after starting an import). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to cancel_import for cancellation, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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