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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful lifecycle context ('in-flight or recently completed'), a status vocabulary, and the presence of an error message, supplementing the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise sentences front-load the purpose, then state the return payload, then give sequencing and parameter linkage. No redundant or filler content.

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 simple read-only polling tool with no output schema, the description covers invocation timing, required parameter correlation, return fields, statuses, and error behavior. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret the tool 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 schema only describes workspaceId, so schema coverage is 50%; the description compensates for the required listId parameter by saying to use the same listId passed to import_apollo_list. This is the most important semantic for correct invocation, although workspaceId receives no additional description here.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get the progress of an in-flight or recently completed Apollo list import.' It enumerates the exact returned fields and statuses, which clearly separates it from the import action and from external-import progress tools.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent to poll this after campaignstack_import_apollo_list, frames it as tracking large imports, and instructs reuse of the same listId. This is direct, actionable when-to-use guidance.

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