Import / Push Job Status Tracker

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context by outlining the status lifecycle and return fields (job_id, status, target_store, push_status, warnings). This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate what the tool will report and how to interpret it.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Includes the status lifecycle and return fields without any filler. Every word earns its place, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 single-parameter read-only status tool, this description covers the purpose, lifecycle, and return payload. Since there is no output schema, the return field list is essential and provided. It omits error handling for invalid job IDs, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and the annotations covering idempotency.

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 coverage is 100% for the sole parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra context by specifying that job_id comes from dsers_product_import or dsers_store_push, helping the agent know where to find a valid job ID. This is useful guidance beyond the raw schema definition.

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 ('Check') and resource ('status of an import or push job'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform imports, pushes, and product management. It immediately tells the agent what this tool does and why it is separate from the others.

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 description implicitly defines when to use this tool: after initiating an import or push, you check its status. It also describes the lifecycle of statuses, giving context on what to expect. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but sibling tools are all different operations, so there is no ambiguity about when this tool applies.

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