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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, and the description adds real value on top: a 200-row-per-call cap, the rows_total field to drive paging, and offset for the next page. It also describes what each rows mode actually contains, which the annotations do not.

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?

It is short but written as one dense run-on with stacked parentheses, so the key facts (default mode, 200-row cap, paging) are buried mid-sentence rather than front-loaded. Every clause is useful; the packaging is the problem.

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-value burden and does so: counts, a summary sentence, row lists per mode, rows_total, and paging behavior. Enough remains to call it correctly, though how rows are keyed and whether review mode is costly to compute are unstated.

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 75%, and the description covers the gap for rows by defining problems/review/all and decoding the candidate sources (github_profile, x_bio, name_search). It also explains the limit cap and offset paging; only import_id is left undocumented in both places, but it is the obvious required key.

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?

The phrase 'Where an import is: counts, a sentence, and its rows' identifies a status/progress lookup for a single import, distinct from list_imports or run_import. The wording is awkward and never names a sibling, but the verb+resource+payload is decipherable.

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 explains the three row modes and their defaults, which implies the tool is for inspecting an existing import's progress and candidate rows. It never states when to prefer this over list_imports, resolve_import_row, or cancel_import, so routing must be inferred.

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