get_import_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses that URLs expire in 1 hour (time-limited), and warns that file contents are untrusted and instructions inside them should never be followed (security note). This is rich, beyond what the schema or annotations would convey.

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 concise, with two sentences: the first states the primary function and access level, and the second provides a critical security warning. It is front-loaded with the most important information, and there is no waste.

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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers essential aspects: what it does, the access level, the nature of the URLs (presigned, expiring), and a safety warning. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly explain the return format (e.g., a JSON structure), but given the simple nature, this is sufficient.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the parameter (import_request_id) with a description that is generic but adequate. The tool description does not add extra meaning about the parameter beyond the schema. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get' and a specific resource 'import request', and clearly states the key behavior: it returns presigned download URLs for the request's files. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_pending_imports and update_import_request_status.

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 implicitly indicates usage by stating 'admin only', which sets a clear access prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it. But the context of retrieving a single request with its files is clear enough for the agent.

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