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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's added value is the auth requirement (bearer token) and the notable behavior that the file URL comes back with the password redacted. It doesn't mention error states or what happens when the ID doesn't exist, so not a 5.

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 tight sentences: the return-value inventory comes first, then the related-tool routing, then the auth note. No filler and nothing buried.

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, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so by naming the key fields the agent will get back, including the last-run errorDescription. Combined with the auth note and the cross-reference to get-import-csvs, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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?

There is a single required parameter (id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the id itself (e.g., where to obtain it), 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 and singular resource ('Get one import schedule'), and it enumerates exactly what is returned: file URL (password redacted), frequency, mapping, options, next/last run, and errorDescription. The singular 'one' implicitly separates it from get-import-schedules, and the pointer to get-import-csvs makes the boundary explicit.

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 routes the agent to get-import-csvs with scheduleId for the imports the schedule queued, which is real when-to-use-this-vs-that guidance. It doesn't explicitly contrast with get-import-schedules (list) or state exclusion conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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