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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Read,' which conveys a read-only operation, but it does not describe what is returned, whether the import object includes status or error information, or what happens when the import ID is invalid. Minimal value is added beyond the tool name itself.

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is immediately clear and front-loaded.

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 two-parameter get operation, the description is minimally viable, but it lacks guidance on return values since there is no output schema. It also provides no usage context or behavioral caveats, so an agent must infer most non-parameter details.

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%, so both import_id and organization_id are already documented. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness, hence the baseline score of 3.

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 'Read one contact import' uses a specific verb and resource, and the word 'one' distinguishes this from list-oriented siblings like commsharbor_contact_imports. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or clarify how it differs from related import tools such as preview, confirm, or errors.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies a single-record retrieval use case but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or mention sibling tools like commsharbor_contact_imports or commsharbor_contact_import_preview.

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