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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail by enumerating the returned fields, statuses, and the fact that it should be polled to track large imports, going beyond the annotations.

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?

Three concise sentences: first states the purpose and return values, second gives the polling use case, third clarifies parameter reuse. There is no fluff, and the most important usage guidance is front-loaded.

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 read-only polling tool with two parameters and no output schema, this description is complete: it specifies the input requirement, the operation context, and the expected return shape, including statuses and error messages. An agent has enough information to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

The listId parameter has no schema description, but the tool description compensates by explaining to use the same listId passed to campaignstack_import_apollo_list. workspaceId is already documented in the schema, so the description adds meaningful guidance where it is most needed.

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 states a specific action: getting progress of an Apollo list import. It clearly identifies the resource, the status values, the returned fields, and the error message, so an agent can understand exactly what this tool does and distinguish it from generic import or progress tools.

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 gives explicit guidance: poll this after campaignstack_import_apollo_list and reuse the same listId. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like campaignstack_get_external_import_progress, so it is clear context without full exclusion guidance.

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