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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the endpoint is undocumented and the reply is returned verbatim as Localazy sends it, warning the agent not to expect a normalized shape. It does not mention polling cadence or batch lifecycle states.

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?

Three short sentences: what it returns, the required link to localazy_import_keys, then the undocumented-endpoint caveat and raw path. Front-loaded and free of filler.

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 importantly discloses that the response is an unprocessed passthrough from an undocumented endpoint, which is exactly the caveat an agent needs to avoid over-parsing results. Minor gaps remain around progress states or whether polling is expected, but the essential context is present.

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 both parameters already carry descriptions in the schema ('project id or slug from localazy_list_projects', 'the `import_batch` returned by localazy_import_keys'). The description restates the import_batch provenance rather than adding new syntax, format, or constraint detail, so it sits at the baseline.

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+resource ('Progress of an import batch') and explicitly ties it to the sibling that creates the batch, localazy_import_keys, plus the underlying endpoint GET /projects/{projectId}/import/{importBatch}. An agent can distinguish it from list/import siblings without opening a 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?

Clearly specifies the precondition: this only makes sense for a batch started with localazy_import_keys, and instructs the caller to pass that call's `import_batch`. It stops short of saying what to do when no batch exists or how to poll/abandon, so it is not a full when/when-not specification.

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