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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's 'Read' is consistent. It adds that the batch is accessed 'by public id' and covers both dry-run and apply batches, but does not describe error behavior, response format, or what happens if the batch is not found.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the verb and resource without any filler. Every word contributes to the purpose.

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?

For a simple read tool with one required parameter, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks explanation of the optional request_id, what the response contains, and any edge-case behavior. Annotations cover safety, but the description doesn't fully equip the agent for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It implies import_id is the public id but never explicitly names it, and request_id is entirely omitted. The description provides minimal value beyond the schema's field names.

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?

The description clearly states the action (Read), the resource (Prospect CRM import dry-run/apply batch), and the key identifier (public id). It distinguishes from the sibling apply/dry-run tools by being a read operation, though it does not explicitly call out alternatives like yardstick_ats_imports_read.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like prospect_imports_dry_run or apply, nor when the optional request_id parameter should be provided. The context implies a read scenario but no alternatives or conditions are stated.

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