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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by stating the return contains counts and cost and explicitly excluding page bodies, which prevents an agent from expecting scraped content.

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?

Two short sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the key limitation ('never page bodies') immediately after. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

For a simple one-parameter status tool with readOnly annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential call context: what to check, what is returned, and what is not returned. It does not explain error cases or how to obtain a jobId, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 carries the burden of explaining the single jobId parameter, but it never mentions jobId, where it comes from, or its format. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 description uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('progress of a crawl'), and adds a distinguishing behavioral note: it 'Returns counts and cost, never page bodies.' This clearly separates it from execution tools like crawl and crawlPages, and from content-returning tools like extract or scrape.

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 phrase 'progress of a crawl' implies it is used after a crawl has been started, but the description does not explicitly say when to prefer it over siblings such as crawl, crawlPages, or leadsStatus, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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