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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds the custom-range requirement and the per-view sort key constraints, but says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, or pagination semantics beyond the existence of a cursor.

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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by a structured Views block and an Args block; every line maps to a real parameter or view. It is long, but with 14 parameters that length is mostly earned rather than padding.

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?

For a 14-parameter, low-schema-coverage, no-output-schema tool this is close to sufficient: filters, range logic, sorting, and pagination are all covered. It stops short of describing what each view's records actually contain, which the absent output schema would otherwise need.

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 only 7%, so the description carries the burden and does so well: it documents accepted range values, required-with-custom date semantics and format, comma-separated platform/http_status syntax, search behavior, and the valid sort_by values per view. Only the analytics-hint user_intent param is left to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the crawler Live tab data') and enumerates the three views with one-line meanings, so the agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the many crawler siblings (get_crawler_detail, get_crawler_overview, get_crawler_pages), so a 5 is not warranted.

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 view list implies which mode to pick for which need, and the conditional requirement for start/end_date is spelled out. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over get_crawler_detail, get_crawler_overview, or get_crawler_pages, nor any when-not condition.

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