import_preview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly identifies this as a read-only preview operation (implicitly non-destructive) and describes what it returns (columns, sample data, mapping suggestions). However, it doesn't disclose potential failure modes, whether preview is expensive, or what happens if the job hasn't finished processing the upload.

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 sentences, one for purpose and one for usage guidance. Zero filler, perfectly front-loaded with the most important information in the first sentence. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description's enumeration of return content (columns, sample data, mapping suggestions) partially compensates by describing expected output. However, with only 2 simple params and no nested objects, the complexity is low. It doesn't explain the relationship to import_mapping/import_execute or what the preview validates (e.g., whether it reports errors). Adequate but not thorough.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (id and companyId). The description adds meaningful context by explaining the tool's output (detected columns, sample data, mapping suggestions), which helps the agent understand what the id parameter refers to in the context of previewing. Uses the term 'companyId' consistently with sibling tools.

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 'Get a preview of an uploaded import job including detected columns, sample data, and column mapping suggestions.' This is a specific verb+resource with concrete deliverables. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like import_mapping/import_get, but the preview-specific role is reasonably clear.

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 states 'Use after uploading a file to review before executing,' which gives clear sequential context. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like import_mapping or import_get or describe when NOT to use it, but the temporal guidance (after upload, before execution) is useful and distinguishes its position in the workflow.

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