Get post CSV import rows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine content information — that results are per-row and status-tagged SUCCESS/FAILED — but says nothing about pagination behavior, whether rows are available before job completion, or result volume despite limit/offset existing.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the resource being returned and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the specification gaps scored elsewhere.

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, 0% parameter description coverage, and four parameters including pagination, the description is far too thin. An agent would not know how rows are shaped, how to page, or how to filter without reverse-engineering 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails to explain jobId, limit (max 500), offset, or that status filters to SUCCESS/FAILED. The mention of SUCCESS/FAILED only echoes the enum already present in the schema rather than explaining filter semantics.

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 names the specific resource — per-row SUCCESS/FAILED results for an import job — which clearly distinguishes it from job-level siblings like get_post_csv_import and list_post_csv_imports. It lacks an explicit verb ('retrieve'/'get'), but the noun phrase is precise enough to identify the operation.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus get_post_csv_import (job summary) or list_post_csv_imports (job listing), and no prerequisites such as requiring a completed job. The agent must infer the call context entirely.

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