import_history

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses this is a listing/history operation and specifies the returned fields (job ID, type, source, status, row counts, timestamps). However, it doesn't clarify read-only safety, pagination depth, or how far back history goes, leaving behavioral transparency somewhat thin but not misleading.

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?

Two clear, compact sentences front-loaded with the purpose ('List past import jobs') followed by precise return field enumeration. Zero wasted words, efficient and immediately readable.

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?

This is a straightforward read-only listing tool with a clear scope (active company, optional override), explicit return fields, and both parameters fully documented in schema. While no output schema exists, the described fields cover the output contract. For an import-history listing across a large API surface, this is reasonably complete, only lacking pagination depth.

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 100%, so both parameters (limit, companyId) are fully documented by the schema. Baseline is 3 per the rubric. The description adds minimal beyond the schema—it confirms active-company default behavior ('active company') that aligns with the companyId parameter note. No additional semantic enrichment warranted.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'List past import jobs for the active company.' The return fields enumerate exactly what is provided. It differentiates from the import tool family (import_execute, import_upload, import_preview) well by stating it's about history rather than execution. However, among the import_siblings it doesn't explicitly name an alternative, so not a full 5.

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?

Implicitly conveys usage: this is for reviewing past import jobs via the return field list. The active-company scoping with companyId override is implied through the description and schema. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., to check current running import status, use import_get or import_execute) or name sibling alternatives for import flow states.

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