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

Goes beyond the read-only annotations by describing the returned information: status, issues done/total, summary, and failure reason. It also discloses concurrency behavior and permission requirements, which are important for correct invocation.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no wasted language. The core purpose and polling guidance are front-loaded, followed by the access constraint.

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?

Given a zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing output context, polling guidance, concurrency constraint, and permission requirement. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 has no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately does not add unnecessary parameter details.

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: the most recent import in the org, including progress, outcome, summary, and failure reason. It distinguishes itself from import_history by focusing on the latest import and from run_import by framing itself as a polling tool.

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?

Explicitly says to poll this tool rather than starting another import, and notes that only one import runs per org at a time. It also states the owner-or-admin access restriction, giving clear when-to-use and prerequisite guidance.

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