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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact not in the annotations -- that the call is 'Free' -- which is useful cost context, but it says nothing about whether an incomplete crawl returns partial pages or how the status is reported.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the prerequisite attached rather than buried. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

For a one-required-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential who/what but omits how to interpret the two return modes (status vs pages) and whether repeated calls are needed to get final results. Adequate but thin, and the trailing 'Free.' is unexplained context.

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 0% for the single 'id' parameter, and the description only implicitly identifies it as the crawl id via 'a crawl started with crawl'. It does not state the format of that id or where it comes from in the crawl response.

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 (Get) and resource (status or pages of a crawl), and ties it to the sibling tool that produces the resource ('started with crawl'), so an agent can place it in the workflow. The 'status or the pages' phrasing leaves slight ambiguity about whether this returns two distinct shapes without naming them.

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 prerequisite ('crawl started with crawl') implies when to call it, but there is no explicit guidance on polling cadence, what to do while the crawl is still running, or when not to use it. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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