get_import_results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. The description adds concrete behavioral details: pagination (default 20, max 100) and filtering by type. It complements annotations without contradiction.

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: first clearly states purpose, second adds essential details on filtering and pagination. No wasted words. The key information is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the main use case (per-row results), filtering, and pagination. It implicitly states that the import must be finished. Slight gap: it could explicitly note that companyId and importId are required, but the schema already marks them as required.

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% with detailed descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal extra beyond the schema: it reiterates the type filter and pagination defaults. Per the guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the verb 'Returns' and the resource 'per-row results for a finished import', which immediately defines the tool's purpose. The title from annotations reinforces 'Get per-row import results'. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_import_status (overall status) and list_imports (list imports).

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 explicitly says to filter by type to surface failures, providing clear usage guidance. It also gives pagination defaults and limits. However, it does not mention when to avoid this tool (e.g., if import is not finished) or compare with alternatives like get_import_status for overall results.

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