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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds crucial nuance: a terminal rejection releases the reservation, processing/unknown/historical imports do not. It also clarifies that repeating the check is safe, which is not implied by idempotentHint=false. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise (3 sentences) and front-loads the primary action and key constraint (no re-upload). It adds behavioral caveats without excessive verbosity. Each sentence earns its place, though it could be tighter.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential functional context: what the tool does, when it's safe, and reservation semantics. Given the complexity of the reservation concept, it is thorough enough for an agent to act correctly. The lack of return format is not critical since no output schema exists.

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 50%, with only projectId having a description. The description does not elaborate on importId or projectId semantics beyond the schema, but the schema already provides the meaning for projectId. The description adds no parameter-specific details, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool refreshes an import from a backend receipt without re-uploading, distinguishing it from upload tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'helvabase_cancel_source_upload' or 'helvabase_source_imports'.

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?

The description explains when to use (to check status of imports with receipts) and when not (imports without receipts, e.g., AZUR610, retain reservation). It does not explicitly name alternative tools for those cases, but the exclusions are clear.

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