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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Check,' which implies read-only but does not explain whether the tool polls for completion, what exactly 'results' includes, or any potential side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Check' and directly states the purpose. Every word earns its place; it is appropriately minimal for a simple status-checking tool.

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?

The tool is simple, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves gaps: it does not explain what 'progress and results' mean, the format of returned data, or that the job_id comes from a prior crawl initiation. This is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for job_id, and the description does not mention job_id at all. It fails to explain what job_id refers to or where to obtain it, providing no compensatory meaning for the parameter beyond the schema's basic UUID type.

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 uses a specific verb 'Check' and identifies the resource as 'progress and results of a site crawl job,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like seo_crawl_site (which initiates) and seo_audit_status (which checks audit status). It is unambiguous and exactly names what the tool does.

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 description implies the tool is for checking crawl job status, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like obtaining a job_id from seo_crawl_site. There is no exclusion or alternative guidance, so usage is only implied.

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