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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — the result ordering is most-recent-first — but says nothing about pagination behavior, whether limit is a hard cap, or what a job record contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the scope and ordering arrive immediately. It is efficient but so terse that the brevity comes at the cost of routing and return-shape information.

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?

Given a simple 3-parameter read with full schema coverage, no nested objects and no output schema, the description is close to sufficient — the ordering guarantee is the key extra fact an agent needs. What is missing is how this differs from the sibling crawl tools (start_ai_crawl, check_ai_crawl_status, get_ai_crawl_results), which matters in a toolset this crowded.

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%: project_id, limit (default 20) and the mandatory context parameter are all documented in the schema, including a worked example for context. The description only echoes the project scoping and adds no semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List AI crawl jobs") plus scope ("for a project") and default ordering ("most recent first"). It does not differentiate from adjacent siblings like check_ai_crawl_status or get_ai_crawl_results, so an agent must infer which of the crawl-related tools it needs.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb "List" — the description gives no when-to-use condition, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternatives (check_ai_crawl_status for a single job's status, get_ai_crawl_results for job output). The agent can guess, but nothing is stated.

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