get_import_set_runs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, read-only behavior. The description adds valuable context: it explains the returned fields (completion status, row counts, errors) and notes that state values 'may vary by instance configuration'. No contradictions.

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 well-structured with a brief overview followed by a clear list of parameters. It is efficient, though the parameter details could be slightly more integrated. However, it remains easy to read and front-loaded with purpose.

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?

With annotations covering safety and idempotency, and an output schema existing, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior. It explains the return structure and parameter constraints. Minor omission: no mention of pagination behavior beyond offset or time range limitations, but overall sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 0% description coverage, but the description's 'Args' section fully compensates by explaining each parameter: table_name (STARTSWITH match), state (common values with caveat), days (range 1-365, default 7), limit (1-1000, default 25), and offset (pagination). This adds meaning far beyond the schema's titles and defaults.

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 'Get recent import set run records' and explains what an import set run represents, along with the information returned (completion status, row counts, errors). This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools, which focus on other aspects like CI details or errors.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide 'when-not-to-use' guidance. While the resource is unique among siblings, the lack of explicit usage context limits the score to average.

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