Get Import Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so safety is covered. The description contributes one real behavioral fact beyond that — that the tool takes no job identifier and reports the most recent job — but says nothing about what happens when no import has ever run, or what the status payload contains (progress, totals, errors).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant restatement of the title. It is efficient, though its brevity is close to under-specification rather than optimal concision.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the definition is close to sufficient. However, with no output schema, the description would need to sketch the shape of the status response (e.g. finished flag, imported/failed counts) for an agent to know how to interpret completion.

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?

There is only one optional parameter, response_format, and the schema documents it at 100% coverage including the enum values and default. The description adds nothing about it, which is acceptable given the schema does the full job; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns the status of the current or last subscriber import job. The 'current/last' phrasing implicitly separates it from listmonk_get_import_logs and from listmonk_import_subscribers, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 only implied: the mention of 'current/last' job suggests polling while an import runs or checking the outcome afterwards, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite (e.g. must follow listmonk_import_subscribers), and no routing to listmonk_get_import_logs for detailed per-row results.

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