import_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly discloses this is a read-only status/get operation, which implies no side effects. It discloses what fields are returned (progress, row counts, error details). However, it doesn't address whether results are cached, whether the job must complete first, or what happens if the job ID doesn't exist.

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 a single, focused sentence that conveys the purpose and key output fields efficiently. No wasted words, though it could arguably be split for readability.

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 get-by-id read operation with only 2 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essentials. However, given the large set of import-related siblings, some pointer to related workflows (when to call this in the import lifecycle) would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters documented ('Import job ID' and 'Company UUID override'). The description doesn't add meaningful semantic depth beyond the schema, but the schema itself is adequate. Baseline 3 applies since the schema handles documentation well.

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 the tool retrieves the full status and details of an import job, enumerating specific content (progress, row counts for imported/skipped/failed, error details). This is a specific verb+resource with concrete detail, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling import tools by naming alternatives.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus import_preview, import_execute, import_history, or other import-related siblings. The description gives no context about when to poll this tool (e.g., after execute, during long-running jobs) or when an alternative would be more appropriate.

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