get_catalog_import_run

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds materially more — the four status values, the exact count fields returned, and failure semantics (a failed run carries `error`, work read before the stop is retained, and nothing is marked removed on a partial pass). That failure/partial-pass contract is the kind of behavior an agent cannot infer from annotations or schema.

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 with purpose, then statuses, then counts, then failure semantics, then the polling instruction — a sensible order with no wasted sentences. Two small deductions: 'Read-only' merely restates readOnlyHint, and the trailing '[#f0059c]' is an unexplained artifact.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates fully by enumerating the returned status values and every count field, plus the error shape on failure. An agent knows what it will get back and how to behave while the run is in flight.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description only implies the run_uuid link to import_channel_catalog and says nothing about the workspace/default-workspace scoping, so it does not exceed 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 resource (a catalog import run) and a specific verb-of-purpose (reporting progress), and names the sibling that creates the object it inspects: 'started with import_channel_catalog'. An agent can distinguish it from import_channel_catalog and from listing/enumeration tools without opening the 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?

Gives concrete operational guidance: poll every few seconds while the run is queued/running, and implies it is only meaningful for a run id returned by import_channel_catalog. It lacks an explicit 'do not use X, use Y instead' exclusion, but the triggering condition is unambiguous.

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