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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent read, so the lower bar applies—but the description clears it anyway. It discloses the crucial downstream consequence (a re-import reconciles onto the same issues and overwrites edits made since the last run) and the authorization requirement (owner or admin only), neither of which is visible in structured fields.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the scope and then the actionable sequencing and warning. Every sentence adds a distinct, decision-relevant fact—no restatement of the name or title.

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 zero-param read tool with annotations carrying the safety profile, an agent has everything it needs: what it returns in broad terms (sources), when to call it, the risk it is meant to flag, and who can call it. No output schema exists, but the return content is adequately characterized.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies and there is no parameter behavior a description needs to document. The description correctly spends no words on inputs.

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 resource and scope in the first sentence: a read-only view of which sources this org has imported previously. That is more precise than the title and lets an agent tell it apart from run_import, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from similar siblings such as list_import_sources, list_import_statuses, or latest_import.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('Check it before running an import') and even prescribes an agent behavior (WARN your human if their source appears) along with the reason. It stops short of naming the sibling tools it is an alternative to, so the routing signal is implied rather than explicit.

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