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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the payload shape — queue status, progress, row-level failures — which tells the agent this is a pollable job-status endpoint that can report partial failure, a genuinely useful behavioral signal.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the return content, zero filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description is not obligated to explain return values, and it still summarizes them. For a one-parameter, read-only status tool this is essentially complete; only the surrounding import workflow and polling guidance are absent.

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 100% and the single import_id parameter is fully documented (pattern plus provenance) in the schema. The description adds only 'for an import', which does not extend meaning beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and enumerates the exact resource contents: queue status, progress, created creator IDs, and row-level failures. This is clearly distinguishable from mutation siblings like roster_commit_import or roster_validate_import, though the description never names those siblings 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of the roster_commit_import prerequisite workflow, and no polling vs one-shot expectation. The only hint of lineage ('import_id returned by roster_commit_import') lives in the schema, not the description, so the description itself gives the agent nothing about context or alternatives.

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