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

The description explicitly instructs the agent to pass cancel=true to stop a crawl, a state-changing operation, while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The read-only declaration does not hold for the documented cancel mode, so the description contradicts the structured safety profile.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and then the conditional cancel path — no filler. The rhetorical 'Stuck or unwanted crawl?' phrasing is slightly informal but still earns its place by motivating the cancel flag.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing what 'status' returns (progress, terminal states, error reporting), and it does not. For a two-parameter job-status tool this is adequate-but-gapped: the agent knows when to call it but not what it will get back.

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%, with both job_id and cancel already documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a rationale for cancel (avoid polling forever) rather than new semantics such as what state the job ends in or whether cancellation is reversible.

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 — checking the status of a crawl job — with scope ('running or completed'), which separates it conceptually from get_crawl_results and list_crawls. It never names those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 a clear when-to-use ('status of a running or completed crawl job') plus a conditional action for the stuck/unwanted case, which is genuinely useful routing guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives such as get_crawl_results, so the exclusion is only implied.

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