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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds the mechanism behind idempotency (client-generated key, identical retries) and the recovery path via source_operation_read — genuine value beyond the structured fields. It omits what a successful import produces and whether external crawling is synchronous/async, which matters for an open-world operation.

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?

One compact sentence with no filler and the core action front-loaded before the recovery pointer. The semicolon splice and missing formatting around source_operation_read make it slightly harder to parse than it needs to be.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the intake and retry story. The remaining gap is behavioral context for an open-world crawler — expected latency, failure modes, or whether sync_frequency triggers background work.

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 100%, including descriptions for agent_id, request_key, and the nested request object, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description merely echoes that a client-generated key exists and that pages are selected, adding no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Imports selected page URLs'), and the 'selected page URLs' phrasing implicitly pairs with website_discover which enumerates pages. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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?

Clear context: this is the intake step for a curated subset of pages, and source_operation_read is named as the alternative for recovering an interrupted intake. It never states prerequisites (e.g. call website_discover first) or exclusions, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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