Get company import job status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by disclosing the authorization class (board_or_agent) and the exact HTTP endpoint, providing useful behavioral context beyond 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 concise with two sentences, each providing distinct value: the core purpose and the endpoint/auth details. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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's simplicity (one required parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the essential purpose, endpoint, and auth. It does not explain what the status contains, but the output schema likely handles that. Minor gap: missing guidance on typical usage flow (e.g., polling after import submission).

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. It mentions the jobId in the URL path, indicating the parameter represents an import job ID, but does not explain its format, source, or any constraints. This is minimal added value.

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 'Get company import job status', which is a specific verb-resource pair. The additional context of the HTTP method and authorization class further clarifies the operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `pc_post_companies_import` that create import jobs.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., importing or previewing). Usage is implied as checking status after an import, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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