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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two real behavioral traits: the call is free, and cancel:true is destructive in a specific way (stops the batch and refunds unread urls), which is more precise than the schema's "refund what it did not read." It still omits whether the check itself mutates or consumes quota, and what state the job is left in after cancel.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the return payload, then the cost, then the abort flag. The one-word "Free." fragment earns its place by answering the cost question immediately.

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 must characterize the return; it does so at a high level (status, done count, results) which is sufficient for an agent to know what it is polling. The only real gap is how to obtain jobId and how limit interacts with large result sets, both left to the schema.

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 67%: limit and cancel are already documented in structured fields, and the prose on cancel largely restates them. jobId is undocumented in both places, and the description never says where jobId comes from (presumably web_scrape_batch), so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ("Checks a batch of scrapes") and enumerates what comes back: status, completion count, and results. An agent can tell it apart from web_scrape_batch, but it never names a sibling or says explicitly that it pairs with web_scrape_batch rather than web_crawl_status.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase "a batch of scrapes" suggests calling it after web_scrape_batch, and the cancel flag hints at an abort path. No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool (web_crawl_status) is named, so the agent must infer the routing.

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