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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds what the payload contains (page counts, collapsed/refused link counters), but says nothing about polling behavior or what an in-progress status looks like.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the verb, resource, and key. The trailing clause about discovery counters is slightly jargon-dense but still earns its place by telling the agent what data comes back.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, yet the description still previews the payload shape. For a single-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient; only the relationship to wait_crawl/get_crawl_pages is left ambiguous.

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% and the single parameter is already documented as 'taskId from crawl'; the description's 'by its taskId' merely restates it. No extra syntax, format, or sourcing detail is added.

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 (Read) and resource (a crawl's report) keyed by taskId, and enumerates the report contents (status, page counts, discovery counters). It implicitly separates itself from get_crawl_pages/get_crawl_errors by naming the aggregate report, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 — an agent can infer this is the polling/status lookup for a crawl, but there is no guidance on when to call it versus wait_crawl, get_crawl_pages, or get_crawl_errors, and no stated prerequisites beyond the taskId.

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