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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond annotations: default omission of routing audit and trace, omission of status-duplicate pages, and self-following cursor behavior bounded by maxResults. It stops short of disclosing auth or rate-limit characteristics.

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?

Dense but efficient, packed into essentially one long sentence with the core purpose front-loaded. No filler, though the single-sentence form makes it slightly harder to scan than a lightly structured version would be.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, yet the description still names the shape ({ items, nextCursor, hasMore, stoppedBy }), which is helpful. With annotations covering safety and the description covering filtering behavior, an agent has enough 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 29%, so the description must carry weight and largely does: it clarifies id (task id), attemptId, debug, includeDuplicates, and maxResults semantics. Only limit and cursor get little to no narrative treatment (cursor is partly implied by 'follows cursors').

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: 'Read a paginated list of crawl page results by task id.' The scope (task id, latest attempt) is precise. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_crawl or get_crawl_errors, but the operation itself 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?

Explains when certain parameters apply (attemptId for non-latest attempts, debug to include audit/trace, includeDuplicates for repeated pages, maxResults for cursor-following), which implies usage. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over get_crawl or get_crawl_errors, nor any when-not conditions.

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