get_import_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns ('row counts and any error details') and implies a read-only operation via 'Get.' While it does not explicitly state there are no side effects, the nature of a status check is inherently safe. The description provides sufficient behavioral transparency for a non-destructive query.

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 tightly structured into three short sections: the main purpose, an Args list, and a Returns summary. Every sentence adds value, and the most critical information (what the tool does) is front-loaded. No fluff or 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?

The tool is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, so the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the essential process: checking an import's status and statistics. The context signal about sibling tools (import_excel) suggests a natural partner, and this description is complete for such a straightforward operation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that import_id is 'The UUID of the import to check,' adding meaningful format and purpose beyond the schema's bare title 'Import Id.' Since it fully captures the single parameter, it effectively bridges the coverage gap.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Get the status and statistics of a data import operation.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like import_excel (which creates an import) and get_data_quality_report (which focuses on data quality). The scope is 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?

The description implies usage by describing the action (checking an import's status) and the parameter (import_id). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear enough for a simple status query but lacks explicit decision guidance.

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