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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds one genuinely useful behavior: with no arguments it silently falls back to the calling agent's most recent import and self-reports which batch it selected, which prevents ambiguity in the result. It does not disclose what happens when no matching import exists or whether both parameters may be supplied together.

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 short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, then the parameter branching in a natural reading order. 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 two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the addressing model and the default case well enough to call it correctly. The main residual gap is what 'progress' actually contains (states, counts, completion flags) and the empty-result case, which matter because there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden; it explains that session_id addresses one conversation and batch_id one import batch, and defines the neither-parameter default. However it omits the batch_id hex pattern and session_id length constraint from the schema, and never states what occurs if both are passed despite implying an either/or choice.

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?

'Import progress' plus the three addressing modes tells an agent exactly what resource is queried and how it is scoped. It is clearly a read/lookup companion to memory_import and memory_import_ticket, though those siblings are never named, so the agent must infer the relationship.

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 description gives explicit routing logic between the two optional parameters and the no-parameter fallback, so an agent knows what to pass in each situation. It does not say when to call this at all versus memory_import_ticket or memory_evidence, leaving the broader when-to-use question unanswered.

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