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 value beyond them: the 50-item cap, newest-first ordering, inclusion of dashboard-created imports, and the fact that timed-out scan results appear here. It does not discuss pagination or what happens past 50 items, which is the main remaining gap.

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-loads the core action and scope, then adds two useful usage notes and a Returns shape. The standalone 'Read-only.' line duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation and is the one piece of low-value text.

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 compensates by spelling out the returned object's fields (id, platform, status, plan, progress, error, etc.). Combined with ordering, cap, and edge-case notes, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the agent_key credential semantics and the response_format enum. The description only restates the response_format default, adding no meaning beyond the schema; 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 ('List the help center's imports') plus scope details: newest first, capped at 50, with status/plan/progress. It also distinguishes itself from the single-import sibling by describing this as the collection view where dashboard-created and timed-out scan results surface.

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 concrete when-to-use context: following/running a source the user connected in the dashboard, and retrieving the result of a helpcenter_scan_import that timed out. It does not explicitly route to helpcenter_get_import for a single import, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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