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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial extra behavior: only finished items appear, results expire with 410 Gone, large bodies are returned as a result_url path rather than inline content, and the page envelope shape. This is well beyond what the annotations 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?

A single dense paragraph with no filler; the item shape and pagination mechanism are front-loaded, and the retention caveat is placed last as a secondary warning. Every sentence carries actionable information.

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 supplies the return envelope ({ results, next_cursor }) and the per-item fields, plus the large-body indirection and expiry behavior. An agent has everything needed to page correctly and interpret results.

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 100%, so the schema already documents job_id, cursor, limit, and status. The description reinforces cursor usage and the status filter but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: returns a page of FINISHED items of a batch job, with one record per item and the exact fields returned. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like spicrawl_batch_status (job-level status) and spicrawl_batch_task_content (single item content).

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 clear conditions: only finished items are listed, unfinished items are excluded, and results expire after the retention window (410 Gone). It also explains pagination flow via next_cursor. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternative for fetching a single large body, though it does give the raw API path.

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