list_manualimport

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which cover the safety profile. The description adds the HTTP method (GET), which reinforces the read-only nature, but provides no additional context such as response format, pagination, or potential rate limits. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 extremely short and to the point, with no fluff. It front-loads the endpoint and lists arguments cleanly. However, its brevity comes at the cost of completeness; it is concise but under-specified.

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 the tool has 4 parameters with 0% schema description coverage and an output schema, the description needs to provide sufficient context for correct invocation. It fails to explain the purpose of each parameter or the nature of the returned data. The description is minimal and does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining each parameter's purpose. Instead, it only lists parameter names and labels them as 'Query parameter', which adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides (types and titles). The description fails to describe what each filter does, acceptable values, or relationships between parameters.

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 clear verb ('Read') and resource ('ManualImport'), and includes the HTTP GET endpoint, which conveys the intent. It is distinct from the sibling create_manualimport (write operation). However, it does not explicitly state that it returns a list, relying on the 'list_' prefix and the word 'Read' to imply that.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any filtering capabilities beyond listing the query parameters, nor does it explain what kind of scenarios would call for this endpoint. There is no mention of exclusions or when to prefer another list_ tool.

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