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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds 'Read-only' which is redundant but consistent. It describes the returned content but not behavioral aspects like pagination or error behavior. With annotations covering safety, the description adds modest value.

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?

Single sentence but dense; front-loaded with purpose, then details return fields. No fluff, but could be split for readability. Still appropriately concise.

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 an output schema present, return details are covered. The description adds scope and intended use. It's complete for a simple list tool with annotations covering safety.

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% with limit parameter described in schema (max, min, default, 'newest first'). Description doesn't add extra meaning beyond what's in schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (list) and resource (imports from this or earlier chats), and enumerates the returned fields (plan_id, charged status, last_run). Distinguishes from siblings like list_plans and list_automations by focusing on imports.

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?

Implied use case for listing imports to repeat or vary optimizations, but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like get_import_result or list_plans. No when-not-to-use guidance.

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