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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the response is paginated, a cursor is returned for continuation, and a free SnoopScan key is required. It still withholds rate limits or result-size behavior for limit/maxCharsPerPage.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the read action and the pagination rationale, then the auth prerequisite. No filler; each sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and pagination/auth are covered. But for a 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the description omits what jobId identifies and what limit/maxCharsPerPage control, leaving the agent underinformed.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, but it only explains cursor (pass the returned cursor to continue). jobId, limit, and maxCharsPerPage are left entirely undocumented, so most parameters have no semantic guidance anywhere.

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 ('Read the pages a crawl has collected'), which clearly distinguishes it from crawl (which initiates a crawl) and crawlStatus. It does not, however, explicitly name a sibling it is not, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Implies the tool is used after a crawl exists by describing the output as belonging to 'a crawl has collected', and it notes the SnoopScan key prerequisite. But it never states when to use this rather than scrape, fetchMore, or crawlStatus, leaving the agent to infer placement in the workflow.

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