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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant traits: it only reports what the crawl observed (no synthesized issues) and that an empty list means "none found" rather than "site is clean" — a real interpretation hazard for an agent reporting results.

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, front-loaded with the resource and its scope, followed by the two interpretive caveats that matter most. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 leaves the shape of a returned finding undocumented — no fields, severity, counts, or pagination behavior, even though it names four issue categories. An agent knows when to call it and how to interpret an empty result, but not what to expect back.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter's description already tells the agent where crawl_id comes from (crawl_site's return). The tool description adds nothing about the parameter, 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+resource ("cross-page findings from a finished crawl") and enumerates concrete issue categories (duplicate titles, redirect chains, broken internal links, orphans). The phrase "cross-page" implicitly distinguishes it from the per-page sibling audit_page and "finished crawl" separates it from crawl_site, but neither sibling is named 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?

The prerequisite is implied clearly enough (a crawl must be finished, and crawl_id is required), which is useful routing context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this versus get_audit or get_internal_link_suggestions, both of which could look like plausible alternatives from the sibling list.

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