review_import

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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true, the description discloses the optimistic-concurrency mechanism: the response carries a batch_digest and downstream mutations are refused on stale reads. This is valuable behavioral context that could not be inferred from annotations or the input 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?

Three short sentences with no filler: purpose first, then the critical digest hand-off behavior. Each sentence adds distinct information, and the most important workflow rule is stated directly.

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?

Given readOnlyHint, a one-parameter input schema, and an output schema covering the response, the description is sufficient. An agent knows what it retrieves, that the result is tied to a batch, and what to do with the digest to avoid stale mutations. No critical calling information is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description is the main carrier of parameter meaning. It clarifies that batch_id identifies a single batch ('for one batch') but does not state where the batch_id comes from or expected format. For a single self-explanatory required string, this is minimally adequate.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Return') and names a concrete resource ('staged candidates and statuses') scoped to 'one batch.' The read-only framing clearly distinguishes it from batch-mutating siblings like amend_candidate, withdraw_candidates, and commit_import.

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 second sentence gives actionable workflow context: pass the returned batch_digest to amend_candidate, withdraw_candidates, or commit_import so the mutation is refused if the batch changed. It does not name alternative review tools or explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the batch-scoped read workflow is clear.

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