Import / Push Job Status Tracker

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

Annotations already cover key behavioral traits (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds value by detailing the status lifecycle (preview_ready → push_requested → completed/failed) and return fields, which are not captured in annotations. It does not contradict annotations, as checking status aligns with read-only operations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential details like status lifecycle and return values in a compact two-sentence format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is largely complete, covering purpose, usage context, and return details. However, it lacks explicit error handling or edge-case information, such as what happens with invalid job IDs, which slightly reduces completeness.

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%, with the job_id parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantics by linking job_id to specific tools (dsers_product_import or dsers_store_push), but does not provide additional details beyond what the schema offers, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 specific action ('Check the current status') and resource ('import or push job'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like dsers_product_import or dsers_store_push which initiate jobs rather than track them. It precisely defines the tool's function without being tautological.

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 implies usage by referencing job IDs from dsers_product_import or dsers_store_push, providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, such as dsers_import_list for broader job listings, which prevents a perfect score.

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