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

The annotations already state that this is a read-only operation and not open-world, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds useful context about what status categories are included, but does not describe return format, pagination, or other operational details.

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 definition is a single compact sentence with no wasted material. The phrasing is slightly awkward and indirect, but it front-loads the crawl status context efficiently.

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 read-only listing tool with complete schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides enough context to understand what categories of crawl data are returned. It could be more explicit about default behavior and sibling differentiation, but no critical information is missing.

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 input schema fully documents the single optional days parameter, including its allowed values and default behavior. The description reinforces the 1/7/30-day window but adds no syntax or format details beyond 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?

The description identifies the resource and the main statuses returned: current crawls, queued crawls, and recently ended crawls over a time window. It is clear enough to understand the tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as mttr_queue or mttr_rescan.

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 description implies the tool is used to inspect crawl status, but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives. It names no exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling tools.

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