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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value by enumerating the possible states (counting, running, paused, finished, stopped, failed), the counts broken out (found, transferred, skipped, failed, remaining), and the empty-state behavior when no import exists. It does not cover pagination or how counts behave mid-run, but for a read tool it adds meaningful context.

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?

A single dense sentence, but it is front-loaded with the purpose and uses semicolons to separate the state list, the counts, and the empty-case note. Nothing is gratuitous, though the run-on length slightly hurts scannability.

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 read-only status tool with no output schema, the description does the important work of explaining what the returned states and counts mean and how the empty case is signalled. It is complete enough to call and interpret the tool with confidence.

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?

With a single routeId parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents the parameter fully (including its source in routes.list). The description only implies route scoping through 'по маршруту' and adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the 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 and resource: shows the progress/state of a history import ('перенос истории') for a route. The enumeration of states makes the tool's role unambiguous, though it never names the import_* siblings it complements. An agent can still tell import_show is the read-side counterpart to import_start/pause/resume without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: by describing what states it reports, the description signals 'use this to monitor an import'. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to the import_start/import_cancel alternatives that would govern the workflow.

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