import_reference_data

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description earns credit by explaining why — repeat runs merge and tombstone rather than wipe, which is the key behavioral fact for a write tool. It does not cover auth, permissions, or runtime/network cost despite openWorldHint=true.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the important re-import semantics; nothing is wasted. Minor deduction for the awkward line break and the missing explicit dataset/source hint.

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, rich annotations, and full param coverage, the description only needs to add the import semantics — which it does. It leaves out error/precondition behavior (e.g. what happens if the source URL is unreachable) for an open-world tool, so not quite complete.

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 enum values and the optional 'quelle' behavior are already fully documented. The description adds no parameter-level guidance beyond the schema, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the work.

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 pair (import/update) and resource (reference data), and adds that imports are incremental across releases. Sibling tools are all query-oriented, so confusion is unlikely, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from them.

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?

The sentence about repeated imports adding new/changed entries and marking removed ones implicitly tells the agent this is safe to re-run and how to refresh data, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite (e.g. which dataset to pick, source requirements).

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