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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the description's job is to add meaning, and it does: it discloses that warnings, redirect origins, and page-limit omissions appear in the result, and that the 'ready' state carries the new site id, editor link and previewUrl. It omits the status lifecycle (what states exist, which are terminal), which is the one behavioral gap.

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 sentences, no filler. The field inventory is front-loaded and the 'when ready' enrichment is correctly placed second as the payoff case. Every clause maps to something an agent would actually act on.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description legitimately carries the return-value burden, and it does so well: counts, warnings, redirects, omissions with next step, and the ready-state payload. For a read-only status tool with full annotation coverage this is close to complete; only the status enumeration 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?

Single parameter at 100% schema coverage, with the schema itself saying 'From import_site.' The description corroborates the origin by naming the import_site run but adds no format, length, or lifecycle detail beyond what the schema field already states. 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?

Names the resource precisely ('Progress of an import_site run') and enumerates what that progress contains: status, page and media counts, warnings, redirects, omitted pages. That ties it clearly to the import_site sibling rather than any list/get tool. The verb itself is only implied ('Progress of'), which keeps it from a full 5.

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 reference to 'an import_site run' and the 'next step to bring them in' implies this is polled after import_site to close the loop, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no polling cadence, and no guidance on what to do with a non-ready status. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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