import_channel_catalog

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

The description discloses many behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it is read-only against the sales channel, does not write to the merchant's store, does not change fulfillment, recognizes existing ApparelHub listings instead of duplicating them, imports run in the background, and re-running is idempotent except for marking removed listings. The readOnlyHint=false annotation is not contradicted because the tool still creates internal tracked listings while the description clarifies the external channel is read-only.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and organized around prerequisites, channel behavior, import workflow, and idempotency. Most sentences earn their place because this is a complex multi-step operation, but the trailing '[#12dc8a]' artifact is extraneous noise.

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 background catalog import with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: availability check, read-only channel guarantee, background polling instructions, the polling sibling, the result-reading sibling, already-running behavior, and safe re-run semantics. The input schema covers all parameters, and the description covers the operational context the schema cannot.

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 the input schema already documents store_uuid, integration_uuid, and workspace. The description mentions store_uuid only in the context of checking with list_tracked_listings and refers to 'this channel' generally, but it does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: bringing a merchant's existing channel products into ApparelHub as tracked listings. It clearly distinguishes this from ApparelHub-created listings and from merely syncing products to a channel. An agent can identify the exact operation without opening sibling schemas.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool: an established seller wants to see or manage what they already sell. It also names prerequisites and alternatives: check list_tracked_listings first, use it only where catalog_read is true, poll get_catalog_import_run, and reuse an already-running import instead of starting a new one.

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