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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — 'Free of charge' — but says nothing about polling cadence, when a crawl is considered finished, or any rate limits.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the scope statement comes first and the cost note second. Nothing is wasted, though the billing aside is the only part not strictly about the operation itself.

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 explained, and rich annotations cover the safety profile. The description correctly conveys the continuation model; the only gap is that it doesn't indicate how an agent learns a crawl has finished, which is relevant for a status tool.

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 100%, so id, offset and max_chars_per_page are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description contributes nothing further about parameter usage beyond the general notion of retrieving 'further pages'.

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 resource (status and further pages of a crawl) and anchors it to its sibling by naming 'a crawl started with ragfeed_crawl', which cleanly separates it from ragfeed_crawl itself. The verb is implicit rather than explicit ('Status and further pages'), which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

The phrase 'started with ragfeed_crawl' establishes the precondition for use, and 'further pages' signals the pagination/continuation case. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or naming an alternative for monitoring an in-flight crawl.

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