im_get_load_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 that the tool shows records received, loaded, and errors, implying a read-only operation. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or rate limits, but for a status check, the behavior is adequately conveyed.

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 three concise sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose, then details output, then gives a use case. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient and clear.

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 no output schema and 4 optional parameters, the description covers the main purpose and typical use case. However, it does not describe the return format or pagination behavior, which would be helpful for an agent using the output. It is mostly complete for a status check tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond the schema definitions (e.g., load_date, source_system, status, limit). It provides a general overview of output but no param-specific elaboration.

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 verb 'check' and the resource 'data load / file ingestion status'. It explains that it shows records received, loaded, and errors, and identifies it as a key morning check, which distinguishes it from siblings like im_get_job_status.

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 provides a clear usage context ('key morning check for confirming source data arrived') but does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or give when-not-to-use guidance. The context implies a typical use case.

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