get_import_errors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but discloses nothing beyond the basic action. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, if there are rate limits, or the format of returned data. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 just three words, front-loaded and zero waste. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, but as a standalone measure, it's efficient.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'import errors' are in this context, how results are structured, or any behavioral aspects. For a list operation with pagination parameters, more detail is essential.

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%, meaning all three parameters (limit, offset, order_by) are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. It doesn't explain what 'order_by' options exist or how pagination works.

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 'List import errors' clearly states the action (list) and resource (import errors), but it's vague about scope and format. It doesn't specify whether it lists all import errors or filtered ones, nor does it distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_import_error' (singular).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. With sibling tools like 'get_import_error' (singular) and 'get_event_logs' (which might include errors), the description offers no context for selection. It lacks prerequisites or exclusions.

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