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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the response carries status plus pages; it says nothing about whether the crawl may still be in progress, whether status values are terminal, or that it is safe to poll — context that would be valuable for a polling-style read tool.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource and return content front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing is wasted.

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 needn't be enumerated, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a tool whose main use is checking progress, the description omits whether it can be called repeatedly during a run and how completion state is signaled, leaving a meaningful gap.

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?

There is a single required parameter at 0% schema description coverage, so the schema provides no meaning for crawl_id. The description partially compensates by implying the id originates from start_crawl, but gives no format, sourcing detail, or error behavior for an unknown id.

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 states a specific resource (a crawl) and what is returned (status and pages), and ties it to the sibling that creates it (start_crawl). It does not distinguish itself from get_job, which likely offers a similar status-retrieval shape, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 reference to "a crawl started with start_crawl" implies the precondition and ordering, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus get_job or list_history, and no guidance on repeated polling.

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