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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world; the description adds a progress model (report only appears when finished) and an explicit prompt-injection warning that scraped page titles and text must be treated as data. That warning is real behavioral context an agent cannot get from annotations or schema, though pagination or response-size behavior is not mentioned.

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: what it returns first, the id provenance second, the safety caveat last. No filler, and the most important content is front-loaded.

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, the description enumerates the returned fields and their lifecycle, so the agent knows what it will receive. Combined with annotations covering safety and idempotency, nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 100% and both parameters are already documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the provenance hint that the ids come from search_start_import, but no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource (check one import's progress) and enumerates exactly what comes back: status, pages crawled, items found, and the report when finished. It is clearly distinguished from search_start_import, the sibling that creates the import this tool inspects.

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?

Tells the agent to use the project_id and import_id returned by search_start_import, which establishes the start-then-poll workflow and the alternative sibling clearly. It does not state polling cadence or when to stop polling, but the trigger condition is unambiguous.

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