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

Annotations already mark it read-only/idempotent; the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the exact statuses returned, the processed/imported counts, and the null-when-never-started edge case. No contradictions.

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 with the action front-loaded and each clause adding information; no filler.

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?

Given no output schema, the description compensates by listing returned fields and the null edge case. It lacks explicit fallback behavior for invalid provider/sourceId combos, but that is minor for a read-only status tool.

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 covers all three params at 100%, so baseline is 3. Description links provider/sourceId to the originating import run but doesn't add format or behavior details 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 ('Read'), a precise resource ('campaignstack_import_external_leads run'), and enumerates the returned data (processed/imported counts, status, error). The null fallback further disambiguates it from other progress tools like get_apollo_import_progress.

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?

Clearly scopes use to checking progress of an import_external_leads run and implies it pairs with campaignstack_import_external_leads. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., get_apollo_import_progress), so no exclusion guidance.

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