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

Beyond annotations, it discloses that this is a stateful operation ('since your last pull'), that unchanged URLs return nothing, that the first pull reports the starting state, and that every pull spends one credit regardless of results. These are meaningful behavioral traits not visible in the schema or annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and condition, followed by essential stateful and cost behavior. No filler or repetition that does not earn its place.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description covers the key operational facts: what is returned, what is omitted, initial state behavior, and per-call cost. An agent has enough to select and invoke this tool 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 coverage is 100%, with the watchId parameter already documented as returned by watch_ai_crawler_access. The description repeats that provenance but adds no new syntax, format, or constraint details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('returns') and the specific resource: URLs whose access changed since the last pull, with concrete examples of change types. It also references its companion tool watch_ai_crawler_access, distinguishing this incremental pull from the one-off check/triage siblings.

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 explicitly ties usage to a watchId obtained from watch_ai_crawler_access and explains first-pull behavior and credit cost, giving clear context for when to call it. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the workflow implication is strong.

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