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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on what the response contains, whether it is module-scoped or workspace-scoped, or any auth/rate-limit context. It does not contradict the 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 definition is short but wasted: the same endpoint string is repeated twice verbatim, and the remaining sentence is machine boilerplate (operation ID) rather than front-loaded purpose. No information is lost by any sentence because no information is present.

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?

With no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and a nested query object, the description should explain the return shape and the module parameter domain. It provides none of this, so an agent cannot call the tool correctly without falling back to describe_operation.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It only echoes the `:module` path segment, giving no meaning for valid module values, format, or the undocumented `query` parameter. With 2 parameters and zero documented semantics, this is a significant gap.

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 only repeats the raw endpoint path twice ("GET /api/import/available-fields/:module") plus an operation ID. An agent can guess it lists available import fields for a module, but nothing in plain language states the purpose, and it is not differentiated from look-alike siblings such as get_import_field_options_by_module_by_f or get_import_template_by_module.

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 only actionable hint is that describe_operation supplies native request schemas, which is schema guidance rather than usage guidance. There is no statement of when to call this tool, when to use the field-options or template siblings instead, or what preconditions exist.

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