import_access_logs

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the job runs in the background and already-imported files are skipped (idempotent-ish re-runs). It does not say how the caller learns when the import finished, but the background/idempotency disclosures are real value beyond 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?

Two short sentences, zero padding, with the core purpose front-loaded and the operational caveat (background, skip already-imported) immediately after. Nothing to trim.

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 no output schema, the description should say what the caller gets back from an import (job id, status handle, or counts) — 'runs in the background' hints at async but leaves the retrieval path unstated. All parameters being optional is also left implicit, relying entirely on the schema.

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?

All four parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including the enum for response_time_unit and the 'omit paths to see import progress' usage. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 (Import) plus concrete resources (Apache/Nginx/Varnish access logs) and the outcome (rebuild Crawl stats). It is distinguishable from siblings like crawl_stats, though it never names that sibling or explains the relationship 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 by the stated purpose: you run this when you want Crawl stats rebuilt from server log files. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. crawl_stats, run_inspections), and no prerequisites such as needing access to local log paths.

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