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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent=false, destructive=false), and the description goes beyond them with plan gating, the upgrade-required failure semantics, and the asynchronous jobId-then-poll workflow. This is meaningful behavioral context the annotations do not provide.

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 tight sentences: purpose, plan/error handling, and return-value workflow. Front-loaded with the action and the polling instruction is placed where it is needed.

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, the description correctly discloses the return (jobId) and the exact sibling to poll it with, and covers the plan-gating edge case. Nothing essential for a correct invocation is missing.

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 already documents url and limit richly (including 1-5000 range, default 100, 1 credit per page), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond what the schema states.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Create a crawl job to extract content from all pages on a website.' Clearly distinguishable from siblings like supadata_scrape (single page) and supadata_map, and it names the exact follow-up tool.

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?

States the plan restriction and what to do on an upgrade-required response ('tell the user rather than retrying'), plus routes the agent to supadata_check_crawl_status for polling. No explicit when-not-to-use versus scrape/extract, but the context is clear.

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