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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are paginated, which is useful context beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about error entry shape, retention, or how paging interacts with attempts.

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 verb and scope come first. It is efficient, though arguably undersized for a five-parameter paginated tool.

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 five parameters, 20% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description should explain cursor-based paging and the attemptId/debug options. It mentions pagination but not how to page or what is returned, leaving material gaps for an agent to call it 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 only 20%, so the description carries most of the burden. It clarifies that the required 'id' is a task id, but says nothing about 'cursor', 'limit', 'attemptId' or 'debug', leaving four of five parameters undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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/list'), resource ('crawl errors') and scope ('by task id'), which cleanly separates it from get_crawl, get_crawl_pages and get_batch_errors. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of get_crawl, get_crawl_pages, or get_batch_errors, nor any stated preconditions (e.g. crawl must be finished). Usage is only implied by the resource noun.

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