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

Annotations declare destructive/idempotent/openWorld but say nothing about the draft default or the 500-article cap. The description supplies both: articles arrive as drafts unless arrive_as is 'as_is', the call starts nothing, and on unclaimed help centers an over-limit selection is refused with limit_reached plus the remaining room. That is meaningful behavioral context an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then the limit behavior, then args and return shape. Efficient and well ordered, though the Args section duplicates text already present in the schema and could be trimmed.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully states it returns { import } with the new selection. For a 5-parameter mutation with full schema coverage, the remaining gap is the undocumented-in-prose agent_key credential, which the schema itself covers thoroughly.

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 100% and the Args block largely restates the schema wording (plan.categories, plan.languages with lands_in not null, 'unchanged when omitted'). The added value over the schema is marginal, so the baseline 3 applies. The agent_key credential parameter is not discussed in the description at all.

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: choosing which categories/languages an import brings plus the draft-vs-source arrival mode. The closing 'Starts nothing' explicitly separates it from helpcenter_run_import, so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling that actually launches the import without opening either 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?

Gives clear context (this configures an import's selection before it runs) and an explicit refusal path: while the help center is unclaimed, an over-limit choice returns limit_reached with the room left, and the agent should choose fewer categories or file a migration request. It does not explicitly name helpcenter_request_migration or helpcenter_run_import as the follow-on calls, leaving that routing to inference.

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