Get Import Result File

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description earns credit for adding real behavior: result generation may still be pending after completion, and files expire after seven days. It does not say what error/response occurs when the import is non-terminal or the file has already expired, which would complete the picture.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, with the terminal-import precondition and the expiry constraint front-loaded. Every clause carries operational weight (pending generation, reference retention, seven-day lifetime).

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 two-param read tool with read-only annotations and no output schema, the description covers preconditions, the pending-generation quirk, and expiry. The remaining gap is how the result is delivered (URL vs. content) and behavior on non-terminal or expired imports.

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% and the `reference` parameter is a non-trivial oneOf over job vs. handoff objects, which the description never addresses. "Preserve the reference" hints at provenance but adds no meaning about the required `{type, id}` shape or the `campaign_id` pairing, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ("Get the result CSV for a terminal import") and scopes it to terminal imports, which differentiates it from get_campaign_creator_import (status) in effect, though the sibling is never named. An agent can tell what it retrieves 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 a clear precondition (import must be terminal), an operational directive (preserve the reference, never reimport to get results), and repeatedly warns against the wrong recovery path. It stops short of explicitly naming get_campaign_creator_import as the tool to poll while the import is still running.

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