Get DataLens workbook import status

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming the status values and explaining the structure of the notifications field, though it does not discuss permissions or rate limits.

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 short sentences are front-loaded with the status result and then cover the notifications structure. Every sentence carries useful information and there is no redundancy.

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 read-only status endpoint with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values: status, progress percent, and notification fields. It could be slightly more explicit about the response shape, but the key information an agent needs 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the import_id parameter and its source are already documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is appropriate for a single documented parameter.

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 that this retrieves the progress/status of a DataLens workbook import and enumerates the possible status values. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from similarly named export-status siblings, but the import-specific content makes the resource unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied: the tool returns how far an import is, so an agent can infer it should be called after starting an import. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of polling behavior, and no comparison to alternative status endpoints.

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