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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: findings are strictly observational ('Does NOT invent issues the crawl did not observe') and empty-list semantics are defined, which prevents misreading an empty result as success.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct load: scope and finding types first, then the non-invention guarantee, then empty-result semantics. No filler and the purpose is front-loaded.

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, the description reasonably conveys the return shape (a list of categorized findings) and the empty case. It omits ordering, pagination, and what happens with an invalid or unfinished crawl_id, but nothing critical to calling it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the sole parameter crawl_id is undocumented in both schema and description. The phrase 'from a finished crawl' is a weak semantic hint that the ID must reference a completed crawl, but no format, source, or validity constraint is given.

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 ('Cross-page findings from a finished crawl') and enumerates the finding types (duplicate titles, redirect chains, broken links, orphans). It implicitly separates itself from the page-level sibling audit_page, but never names an alternative explicitly.

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 implied by the precondition 'from a finished crawl', which tells the agent this must follow crawl_site. However, it never says when to reach for this versus audit_page, get_audit, or explain_finding, so routing is left to inference.

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