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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description adds genuine context: the result is capped at 5 items, ordered newest first, and each entry includes import_id, progress stage, and counts. This is useful behavioral detail an agent cannot get from annotations, though return-shape formatting details 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 tight sentences with zero waste; the scoping constraints and return fields are front-loaded before the usage hint. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple read-only list tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers return contents, ordering, and cap. The one gap is role_id semantics, which is the remaining piece an agent needs before calling reliably.

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 description coverage is 0% and role_id is a bare string with no explanation. The description only implies role_id by saying 'a role's imports' — it does not say what a role_id is, its format, or where to obtain it (e.g., from list_roles), forcing the agent to guess.

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 (list) and resource ('a role's imports') with scope 'last 5, newest first' and enumerates the returned fields (import_id, stage, counts). It is clearly distinguishable from get_import (single import) by the plural/list framing, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.

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?

'Use it to find an import started in the web app' gives a use case, implying this is the entry point for locating an import to then act on. However, it never names alternatives (get_import, cancel_import, resolve_import_row) or states when NOT to use it, leaving routing partly to inference.

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