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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations by disclosing that extraction isn't saved, that read and save jobs may overlap so counts aren't statement totals, that absence of a job is not proof of no import, and that the tool never uploads, parses, saves, retries or recovers. These are precisely the side-effect and data-validity caveats an agent needs before acting on the result.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core question and answer shape, followed by the caveats in descending order of importance. No filler and no repetition of the name or title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the scoping and validity caveats thoroughly. The one gap is scope selection: with no job identifier parameter, it is not stated which five jobs are examined (presumably the caller's most recent), leaving the agent to infer the lookup window.

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 single parameter (clientEmail, accountants-only) is fully documented in the schema at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about the parameter — in particular it doesn't clarify what happens when clientEmail is omitted, which matters since it is not required.

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?

Opens with the exact user question it answers ('Did my statement finish importing?') and states the resource (import jobs) plus the return payload (status and authenticated review link). It is clearly distinct from neighbors like get_scan_status, get_last_receipt_result and trace_document by virtue of being about statement import jobs, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear invocation context (checking whether an import finished) and a hard bound of 'at most five jobs'. It also supplies a key interpretation rule — 'No job found doesn't prove no import; older non-job imports are excluded' — which tells the agent when the answer is inconclusive. It stops short of naming which alternative tool to use for older/non-job imports.

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