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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial value beyond them: it lists the exact status values (queued, running, completed, failed), says page counts and crawled page content are returned once completed, and discloses the API-key/header requirement.

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?

Four tightly written sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and then covering pagination and auth. No sentence is redundant or padding.

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 present, the description compensates by describing the return shape (status, page counts, crawled page results with extracted content). Auth and pagination are both covered, so an agent needs nothing else to invoke this 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It explains the roles of job_id, page, page_size, and api_key (including the X-Api-Key header), though it does not mention the default values or the 1-based page convention that the schema's defaults imply.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve the status and results of a crawl job by its job ID') and explicitly distinguishes this polling/retrieval role from the sibling 'crawl' that starts a job. An agent can immediately tell this is the status/result lookup tool.

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?

It clearly says this is for retrieving status and results by job ID, and explains that page/page_size navigate paginated results. It stops short of naming alternatives (such as batch_status or map_job) or stating when not to use this tool, but the intended polling usage is obvious.

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