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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real context beyond them: the run is asynchronous, polls should be spaced a minute apart, progress counters include conflicts with local edits and failed images, and error text only appears once a run stops. It does not address the credential requirement, but the schema covers that in depth.

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 and mostly tight, with the polling cadence and read-only status clearly stated. The opening sentence is a long run-on, and the trailing 'limit' sentence is ambiguous enough that it does not fully earn its place.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so well, naming the plan, selection, progress counters, review queue, and error state. The only gaps are the missing agent_key in the Args block and the unexplained 'limit' reference.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds little on parameters and actually omits agent_key from its Args list despite it being required. The stray sentence 'limit says how much room an unclaimed help center has left' refers to something not present in the input schema, which invites confusion about whether 'limit' is a parameter or a returned field.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Read one import') and immediately enumerates what the read returns: plan, chosen items, run progress, review queue, errors. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling reads like helpcenter_list_imports and helpcenter_get_import_redirect_map.

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?

Explicitly instructs polling this tool until status is completed or failed, and warns that the run reads the source in the background so checks should be a minute apart. It does not name alternatives (e.g., that list_imports should be used to discover imports), but the when-to-use loop is unambiguous.

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