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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful domain semantics (what makes a resource uncrawlable) but says nothing about pagination limits (default 100 / max 1000), result volume, or the required task context. The 'returns a list' phrasing reads like a read, which sits uneasily with a destructive annotation, but it does not explicitly contradict it.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core concept front-loaded and no filler; every clause defines the tool's output scope.

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 return values need not be explained, and the description explains the semantic meaning of the returned data well. However, it omits the task-ID prerequisite, pagination behavior, and any differentiation from sibling endpoints, which are material for a POST endpoint with an array body.

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 reported as 0%, so the description is expected to compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds nothing about id, limit, offset, filters, or order_by, leaving the agent to rely solely on the raw schema text.

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 gives a specific verb (returns a list) and resource (resources that could not be crawled) and even defines the 'uncrawlable' criterion (content type mismatch between server response and HTML reference). This differentiates it from the sibling post_dataforseo_on_page_resources, though it does not explicitly name that sibling as the adjacent alternative.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus sibling on-page endpoints, and no mention that this is a follow-up call requiring a task ID produced by an earlier Task POST. The agent must infer the workflow entirely.

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