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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the grouping key (type, affected URL), the special grouping for page-text checks (TITLE_TOO_LONG -> target=title, targetIsSubject=true), the null-target fallback (TITLE_MISSING), the ignored-alert default, and the pageUrls cap with direction to trust pageCount. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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?

Six information-dense sentences with the core value proposition and the sibling comparison front-loaded. Length is justified by the aggregation semantics, though it is close to the upper bound of what is useful in a single description.

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 an 8-parameter aggregation tool with no output schema, the description covers grouping semantics, edge cases, filtering, ignored-alert behavior, and pagination caveats. An agent has everything needed to interpret results correctly without seeing the response shape.

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 crawlId, page, size, type, category, severity, includeIgnored, and pageUrlContains. The description reinforces category/type selection but adds little syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 operation (rolling alerts up into unique issues) on a specific resource, ranked by reach, and explicitly contrasts the output with get_crawl_alerts' per-page emission. The agent can distinguish it from get_crawl_alerts and get_crawl_issues without opening any 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?

Gives explicit routing conditions ('Prefer this over get_crawl_alerts when answering "what should I fix first"') and names the alternatives for the cases this tool does not cover (get_crawl_alerts for the full page list, get_crawl_issues for listing categories). When-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are both present.

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