Check list import status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral constraint (single most-recent import only), which is useful context beyond the annotations. It does not describe what 'progress' looks like on return (status values, completion vs. failure states), and with no output schema that leaves a gap.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the limitation. Every sentence carries information.

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 read-only status tool with a fully documented single parameter, the definition covers what it does and one key constraint. It is less complete on the return side: an agent cannot tell whether progress is a percentage, a set of status strings, or terminal states, and no output schema exists to fill that in.

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% and the single list_id parameter is already documented as 'The list ID returned when the import started.' The description adds no further meaning about that parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Check the progress of the current contact list import.' An agent can tell this is a read-style status check for imports rather than for calls or campaigns. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with status siblings like call_status or campaign_status, so it stops short of a 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?

The sentence 'Only the most recent import can be checked' gives a real usage limitation that prevents wasted calls, which is more than nothing. However, it does not say when to use this versus other status tools, nor what to do if the caller wants an older import, leaving the alternative path implied.

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