Get an import job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile of a GET operation. The description adds minimal context beyond that — the endpoint path and 'Body fields: none' — but does not disclose error behavior (e.g., 404 when the importId is unknown) or response characteristics.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by the endpoint, a body-field clarification, and a reference link. Every sentence earns its place; only minor formatting issues (extra space) and the slightly redundant repetition of the tool name keep it from a 5.

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 simple single-resource GET with strong annotations and a schema that already explains pagination semantics, the description is serviceable. However, with no output schema, it would benefit from describing what an import job is or what the response contains; the reference URL partially fills this gap.

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 50%: the query object is richly documented (arrays comma-joined, explicit offset/limit pagination, results not auto-combined), while importId has only name/type/minLength. The description compensates somewhat by binding importId to the URL template and confirming 'Body fields: none', but it adds no detail about what an import ID is or how to obtain one.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Get an import job') and reinforces it with the endpoint 'GET /api/xm/1/imports/{importId}', making clear this fetches a single job by ID. The singular 'an import job' and the {importId} path segment implicitly distinguish it from the plural sibling xmatters_get_import_jobs, though it never names that alternative 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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as xmatters_get_import_jobs (listing) or xmatters_get_import_job_messages (job messages). No prerequisites, exclusions, or selection criteria are provided.

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