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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that this is a read operation and returns current counts, which implies non-mutating behavior. However, it does not mention any other behavioral aspects (e.g., whether it includes errors, if counts are live, or any auth requirements). This is a minimal but adequate disclosure for a simple get operation.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the core purpose. It is concise with zero wasted words, and the key information (read, single import, counts) is presented upfront.

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 get operation with two well-documented parameters, the description is largely complete. It specifies the returned data (counts) and the action. Minor gaps include not clarifying what 'durable' means or what exactly the counts include, but these are not critical for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, with both parameters documented (import_id and organization_id). The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. No extra clarification or format details are provided.

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 description clearly states the action (Read) and the resource (one durable contact import) plus what is returned (current counts). It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like confirm, errors, preview, and imports by focusing on reading a single import with counts.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (confirm, errors, preview, imports). The description only states what it does, not the conditions that would select it over alternatives. Given the large sibling list, explicit routing would help.

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