import_results

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses pagination behavior (defaults 20, max 100) and filter capability. It does not mention what happens if the import is not finished or error handling, but the core behaviors are covered.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence provides essential information. Ideal structure for quick comprehension.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: purpose, filtering, and pagination. It could mention return value shape or error handling for incomplete imports, but the essential context for a retrieval tool is present.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the 'type' parameter is for filtering to surface only failures, and mentions pagination defaults (20, max 100), which enhances understanding beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 tool returns per-row results for a finished import, using specific verb 'Returns' and resource 'per-row results for a finished import'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like imports_list (which lists imports) and import_status (which gives status), as it focuses on detailed row-level results.

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 provides clear usage context: use after import is finished, filter by type to surface only failures. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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