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 that results include per-row outcomes, which is genuine context on return content, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or how far back 'past' goes.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the resource and follows with the outcome payload. No filler, though it is arguably too terse for the amount of undivided behavior it leaves unstated.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must hint at return values, and 'per-row outcomes' does that minimally. However, for a listing tool with an undocumented locationId filter and no pagination or result-limit information, an agent cannot fully anticipate what it will get back.

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 coverage is 50%: organizationId is documented ('Gym id from list_my_organizations') while locationId has no description, and the tool description does not explain what locationId filters. One of two parameters is left ambiguous in both schema and description.

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 resource (bulk coach import batches) and scope (a gym, with per-row outcomes), which separates it from bulk_import_gym_coaches (starts an import) and the generic list_gym_imports. It never explicitly names those siblings, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 past-tense framing ('Past bulk coach imports') implies this is for reviewing completed imports rather than starting one, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to sibling tools such as bulk_import_gym_coaches or list_gym_imports.

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