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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds crucial error semantics for CONFLICT (distinguishing unfinished vs. permanently failed) and NOT_FOUND, which are not captured by structured annotations. It stops short of describing payload format, size limits, or any auth/rate-limit context, but the added error behavior is genuinely useful.

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 sentences with zero waste: core purpose and seq semantics front-loaded, cost/alternative rationale next, and error handling last. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is easy to scan.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values ('full payload') and does so only generically. The thorough error semantics compensate substantially, but an agent still lacks detail on payload format or whether partial content is possible. Given the tool's focused scope and existing annotations, it is nearly complete.

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 both parameters are already fully documented. The description repeats the 0-based submission-order note for `seq` rather than adding new meaning (e.g., allowed ranges, relationship to job_id). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Return the full payload'), resource ('one item of a batch job'), and access key ('by its seq'). It explicitly contrasts with sibling `spicrawl_batch_results` by calling itself 'cheaper than paging results', making the distinction actionable 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?

It clearly states when to use it ('when you need one URL's output') and names the alternative (`poll spicrawl_batch_status`) for unfinished items. The conflict and not-found error conditions give concrete operational guidance on retrying or abandoning the request.

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