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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full load, and it does disclose the key behavioral traits: polling semantics, the non-terminal `processing` state whose payload lacks the final result, and realistic run durations. It does not describe authentication, rate limits, or the shape of the result data beyond a one-line summary, leaving some burden on the caller.

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 action, then polling guidance, then fallback advice — a sensible priority order. The closing sentence about return values is mildly redundant with the opening sentence but earns some place given there is no output schema.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the polling loop contract, timing expectations, terminal states, and a fallback path, which is what an agent needs to drive this tool correctly. The one real gap is that `id`'s expected format/source is only hinted at, and the result payload is described only generically.

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 50%: `conversationId` is fully documented in the schema, while `id` has no schema description at all. The description partially compensates by identifying `id` as a `firecrawl_agent` job ID, telling the agent where to obtain it, but adds no format or validity details. Minimum-viable for a two-parameter tool with a coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Retrieve progress or final results") tied to a `firecrawl_agent` job ID, which immediately distinguishes it from the job-creating sibling. An agent can tell this is the polling counterpart to firecrawl_agent 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?

Explicitly names the terminal vs non-terminal conditions (`processing` vs `completed`/`failed`), gives a polling cadence (15–30 seconds), sets latency expectations (one to three minutes, longer for complex jobs), and names fallback alternatives (`firecrawl_search` and `firecrawl_scrape`) when time runs out. This is about as complete as usage guidance gets.

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