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 adds valuable domain behavior: 'Confirmed sources count once per workspace; pending outcomes remain reserved' explains state semantics, and 'No backend receipt can be supplied by the client' discloses a client limitation. This goes beyond the structured hints without contradicting them.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and no wasted words. It efficiently conveys scope, key behavioral nuances, and a limitation without redundancy, fitting within a concise structure.

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 read-only inspection tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and state semantics, but does not describe the return format or what per-file states look like. Given the lack of output schema, a brief note on the response could enhance completeness, though annotations mitigate some safety concerns.

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 50% (projectId has a description, limit does not). The description does not mention any parameters, so it adds no additional meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema partially covers the required parameter, and the optional limit has constraints but no semantic explanation.

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's action ('Inspect per-file durable import states') and scope ('for this dossier'). It provides domain-specific detail about counting and reservation of sources, which helps clarify the resource being inspected. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like helvabase_reconcile_source_import or helvabase_preview_sources, so it misses a direct comparison.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does and one limitation, but does not say when to prefer this over reconcile_source_import or upload_sources, nor when it is inappropriate. Usage context is only implied by the read-only inspection purpose.

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