list_pending_imports

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the admin-only restriction and the default status, which is useful, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, whether results are limited, or what happens when no status is provided. For a list tool, the lack of any note about result size or filtering behavior is a notable gap.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the admin-only qualifier and default status. It is concise and every phrase earns its place, though it could have added a brief note about pagination without much cost.

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 simple list tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks any mention of pagination behavior or result ordering, and the admin-only restriction is the only contextual note. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, a bit more context about what the response contains or how pagination works would make it fully 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 schema already documents all three parameters (skip, take, status). The description adds the default status value ('PENDING') which reinforces the schema, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('concierge import requests'), and a scope ('across all farms'), with an admin-only qualifier. It does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like get_import_request or update_import_request_status, but the plural 'list' and status default make the purpose reasonably clear.

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 implies usage by naming the resource and default status, and the admin-only note gives a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_import_request, nor does it mention that status is optional and defaults to PENDING beyond the schema. The guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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