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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces read-only and adds valuable behavioral context by stating the return includes safe structured state, result metadata, and authenticated result URLs, and that server filesystem paths are never exposed. This goes beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 compact and well-structured: the first sentence defines purpose and alternative, the second explains return content and security. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 detailed return structure isn't needed. The description provides the alternative tool, polling interval, and a security guarantee, making it sufficiently complete for a read-only status lookup with good annotations.

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 fully describes task_id as 'Task ID returned by create_crawl_task', giving 100% schema description coverage. The description only references task_id without adding new semantic detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 it gets crawl task status by task_id for API-key accounts, distinguishing it from get_direct_task_status for accountless x402 tasks. The verb 'Get' and resource 'task status' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly names get_direct_task_status as the alternative when the tool should NOT be used ('accountless x402 tasks... instead'), and provides a recommended polling interval (5–10 seconds until has_result=true). This gives clear when-to-use and how-to-use guidance.

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