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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description does add one useful piece of context beyond annotations - the account-scoped visibility ('only data visible to the linked Market Brew account') - but nothing about what a seed record contains or how the two identifiers relate.

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?

Only two sentences, but the first is tautological filler that earns nothing; the second, with the account-visibility constraint, is the only substantive content. Reasonably sized but front-loaded with waste.

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?

With no output schema and two undocumented params, the description leaves the agent unable to reason about inputs or results. Given a read tool whose safety profile is already in annotations, it should at minimum explain the identifiers or point to the listing sibling.

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?

Both required parameters (website, seedId) have 0% schema description coverage and the description says nothing about either. It does not clarify what a 'seedId' is, whether 'website' is a domain or a numeric ID (the schema allows string or number for both), or how they pair.

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 sentence 'Use this when the user asks to get a crawl seed' merely restates the tool name and title with no added specificity. There is no distinction drawn from siblings like list_deep_crawl_seeds or get_deep_crawl_import, so an agent cannot tell what 'a crawl seed' actually is.

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 stated trigger ('when the user asks to get a crawl seed') is circular - it defines use by the request rather than by any condition the agent can evaluate. No alternatives (e.g., list_deep_crawl_seeds for enumerating vs. this tool for fetching one) are mentioned.

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