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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds pagination behavior (cursor returned from a previous call, limit 1-100) and the conditional requirement that start/end_date are needed only with range_preset='custom', but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or result shape.

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-loads the purpose, then a compact lens map, then a scannable arg list. Given 14 parameters it wastes no words; each line adds an actionable constraint or default.

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 and only 1 required parameter, an agent has enough to build a valid call: filters, sorting, and pagination are all documented. Completeness is slightly undercut by the absent return-value description and the undocumented user_intent param, but neither blocks correct invocation.

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 almost the entire burden and largely delivers: it documents date formats, the conditional date requirement, intent values, search targets, status filter, and crucially the lens-dependent valid values for sort_by. The only parameter it omits is user_intent, which the schema itself describes.

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 Pages tab data') and immediately enumerates the three lenses that define the view. It is clear what the tool returns, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from close siblings such as get_crawler_detail or get_crawler_overview.

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 lens list and defaults (range_preset=30d, intent=all, status=all, sort_dir=desc) imply how to configure a call, and the sort_by/lens dependency is flagged. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus the other crawler tools, so usage must be inferred.

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