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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add one genuinely useful behavioral rule — ignored alerts are excluded — but says nothing about permissions, pagination, or how 'severity' is computed, leaving the mutation/safety profile implicit from the verb 'Summarize'.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope, grouping, and exclusion rule all appear in the first clause set without redundancy.

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 read-only summarizer with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers what is aggregated (issues by type and severity) and one filtering rule. It is adequate but leaves sibling disambiguation unresolved and gives no hint about result shape or volume.

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% for the single crawlId parameter, so the schema already documents the input. The description adds no format, validity, or scoping detail about crawlId beyond what the schema states.

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 (Summarize) and a specific resource (SEO and quality issues found in a crawl run), plus the grouping dimension. It is clear on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling get_crawl_issue_summary or from get_crawl_alerts.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never names an alternative, despite three closely related siblings (get_crawl_issue_summary, get_crawl_alerts, get_crawl). An agent must guess which of these to call.

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