Get Import Status

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful context: it returns a JSON object, lists required parameters, and provides the full API endpoint. This enhances transparency without contradicting annotations.

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 fairly concise with 4 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. It includes necessary details (required params, API endpoint) without excessive verbosity. Minor redundancy exists (e.g., 'Scheduling records' mentioned twice), but overall efficient.

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 the 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and return type. It includes the API endpoint for further reference. However, it does not mention pagination parameters (page, per_page) which are present in the schema but could be helpful for understanding result limits.

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 6 parameters. The description merely reiterates the required parameters (company_id, project_id, schedule_id, job_id) without adding deeper semantic meaning or usage examples. 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to get the status of an import job and fetch full details of scheduling records. It uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (import job status), and provides context from the API endpoint. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like `get_schedule_import_processing_state`.

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 says 'Use this to fetch the full details...' which implies a usage scenario, but it lacks guidance on when to use this versus other similar tools (e.g., `get_schedule_import_processing_state`). No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are mentioned.

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