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

Annotations only cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing that unfinished items are not yet listed, the exact paging contract, the expiry-and-410 behavior, and the large-body result_url fallback. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot express.

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?

The core purpose leads the sentence, followed by pagination and retention details in priority order. Dense but efficient, though the first sentence packs several concepts into a nested parenthetical that could be split for faster scanning.

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?

Output schema exists, yet the description additionally explains the page shape and cursor handoff, plus what happens on expiry and where large bodies live. For a paginated read tool with three inputs, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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%, and the description's parameter-level content (cursor round-trip, page size, status filtering via the job's items) is already stated in the schema. It restates the paging loop without adding new syntax or constraints, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Return) and resource (a page of FINISHED items of a batch job), and the scope word 'FINISHED' immediately distinguishes it from job-level status siblings and from per-task content fetches. An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the schema.

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 gives clear operational context: results only appear once items finish, pages are walked by passing next_cursor back as cursor, and results expire (410 Gone). It also points at the result_url path for large bodies rather than the sibling spicrawl_batch_task_content. What's missing is an explicit when-to-use comparison against spicrawl_batch_status or spicrawl_batch_list.

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