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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing result ordering, the return envelope shape, cursor semantics, and a useful negative guarantee ("Never includes the stored credentials") — meaningful behavioral context a caller would otherwise have to discover.

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 tight sentences with zero filler: ordering and scope first, then return shape and pagination. Every clause carries information the caller needs.

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 compensates by stating the response envelope and pagination field. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and a fully documented schema, an agent has everything needed to call and page through this tool correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value beyond the schema by documenting the end-to-end cursor contract (next_cursor out, cursor in for the next page), which is the non-obvious part of the call. It says nothing extra about the engine/status filters, which are already enum-documented.

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 ("List this API key's project's sessions") plus scope and ordering ("newest first"), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not, however, name or contrast itself with siblings like spicrawl_session_get or spicrawl_requests_list, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 description explains the pagination workflow (pass next_cursor back as cursor) but gives no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternative list tools. Usage is implied by the resource name rather than stated.

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