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

Strong disclosure beyond the annotations: it tells the agent the call is non-mutating in effect, returns a preview of pending changes plus a confirmation link, and that only the human merchant can actually execute it. The one wrinkle is that 'Calling this changes nothing' sits in mild tension with readOnlyHint=false, which the description does not reconcile. It also adds the integer minor-units convention for money, which the annotations cannot convey.

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 action and immediately followed by the crucial non-mutation caveat. The money-integer sentence interrupts the flow between the action statement and the confirmation-link clarification and its relevance to this call is not made explicit, but nothing is padded.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: it does not mutate, it returns a preview and confirmation link, and a human executes it. It stops short of pointing at the natural follow-ups (imports_inspect, changes_status) for tracking the resulting import.

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 the single 'import' parameter is fully documented there (name or id, as imports_list returns them). The description adds nothing about the parameter itself; the money-in-cents note concerns import payload contents rather than this argument, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Run a product import now') and then corrects the expectation by clarifying it only produces a preview plus a confirmation link. That is genuinely distinguishing information, but it never names or contrasts with the obvious siblings (imports_create, imports_inspect, imports_list), so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 description explains the two-step preview/confirm flow, which is useful workflow context, but gives no selection guidance: nothing says when to call imports_run rather than imports_create or imports_inspect, nor what precondition must hold first (e.g. an import must already exist via imports_create/list). Usage is implied at best.

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