Wait for a crawl

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: it is a blocking call with a timeout (default 30000, ceiling 120000) and it may return a partial report rather than failing, which is the key non-obvious trait for an agent to plan around.

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 dense sentence with the default/max values front-loaded and the timeout fallback at the end. Nothing is padding; every clause (wait, timeout bounds, report return, partial result, next step) carries distinct 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. Given that, the description covers everything needed to invoke and recover correctly: the blocking semantics, the timeout bounds, and the follow-up path after a partial return.

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 only 50% – timeoutMs has a type and bounds but no description. The description compensates by supplying the default (30000) and the effective cap (120000), which is the operationally important information. It does not restate the 'taskId from crawl' meaning of id, which the schema already covers.

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 names a specific verb (wait) and resource (a crawl) and states the outcome: it blocks until the crawl finishes and returns its report. It also implicitly separates itself from the plain get_crawl status check by emphasizing the blocking/waiting semantics and by routing to get_crawl_pages when incomplete.

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?

It gives clear usage context: 'at the timeout it returns the report so far, so wait again or read get_crawl_pages.' That tells the agent exactly what to do when the wait does not complete, which is the main decision point for this tool. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use statement versus get_crawl or wait_batch.

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