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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new context: 'no account' required, the propagation delay before results are meaningful, and the fact that the response carries the next crawl time. It stops short of describing error states (e.g. unknown origin) or whether status is eventually consistent beyond that caveat.

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?

Front-loaded with the core answer (what became of your submission) and dense with useful clauses; nothing is filler. The final sentence repeats ground already covered by the opening enumeration ('Returns the origin's state, its findings and the next crawl time'), costing it a point on strict conciseness.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by naming the returned fields (state, findings, next crawl time). Combined with the timing caveat and the verify_endpoint contrast, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only the origin format and failure behavior are left implicit.

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% and the single parameter 'origin' is undocumented in the schema, so the description must carry the burden; it only implies that origin identifies the agent's origin via 'an agent you submitted' and 'the origin's state'. It never states the expected format (hostname vs URL vs full origin string), which is the one thing an agent genuinely needs here.

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?

Names a specific resource (a submitted agent) and enumerates exactly what the tool reports: crawl state, findings (listings, tools), reasons for nothing being listed, and the next crawl time. It also explicitly contrasts itself with verify_endpoint, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives both a timing precondition ('Use it a minute or more after register_agent') and the alternative with the condition that selects it ('verify_endpoint answers the same question for any URL, submitted or not'). The when-to-use / when-to-use-something-else split is fully explicit.

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