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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this 'submits a Builder task,' which is consistent with a non-idempotent write rather than a synchronous read. It does not disclose what the task produces, whether credentials/keys are required, or any rate limits — meaningful gaps for a job-submission tool, but the annotation bar is lower here.

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 trigger enumeration is redundant ('Crunchbase 信息、Crunchbase 公司信息、Crunchbase 企业信息、Crunchbase company') and pads the front. The action statement follows, so it is reasonably front-loaded, but several near-synonymous phrases do not fully earn their 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 no output schema, the description should carry the return/lifecycle burden, but it only says a task is submitted. It never states that a task id is returned and that results are retrieved via sibling tools like scraper_task_status/scraper_task_result. For a task-submission tool this is an incomplete but not fatal omission.

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 the schema already documents url, keyword, file_name and the spider_id enum mapping. The description reinforces the two modes (by-url vs by-keywords), matching spider_id, but adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 second sentence states a specific verb and resource: '复用一个工具提交 Crunchbase 公司信息采集 Builder 任务' (submit a Crunchbase company-info collection Builder task). It also names the two supported modes (by-url, by-keywords), which pin down the scope. Differentiation from the many source-specific siblings is implicit through the Crunchbase/company naming rather than explicit.

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 first sentence gives an explicit trigger condition: use when the user needs Crunchbase company info combined with verbs like 采集/抓取/爬取/获取/提取. It also presents the two modes as the routing choice. There are no explicit 'do-not-use' exclusions or named alternative tools, but the usage context is clear.

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