Get post CSV import rows

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that rows carry SUCCESS or FAILED statuses, which aligns with the status enum, but omits pagination behavior, default limits, ordering, and what row-level data accompanies each status.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core output concept with no filler. It conveys the essential distinction and earns its place, though brevity comes at the cost of completeness in other dimensions.

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 paginated tool with 4 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. Missing jobId provenance, pagination defaults, status filter defaults, and row payload details leaves an agent unable to confidently predict the response shape.

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?

The schema has 0% schema description coverage, and the description only maps 'import job' to jobId. Limit, offset, and the status filter semantics are not explained, and repeating SUCCESS/FAILED does not add meaning beyond the schema.

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 states the tool returns per-row SUCCESS/FAILED results for an import job, and the 'per-row' qualifier differentiates it from sibling get_post_csv_import, which likely returns job-level data. The title provides the verb and resource. Some vagueness remains about what fields each row contains, but the core purpose is clear.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus get_post_csv_import or list_post_csv_imports. The phrase 'per-row' implies the intended use, but no alternatives, exclusions, or decision criteria are named, so the agent must infer the boundaries.

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