firecrawl_agent_status

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, which the description does not contradict. The description adds critical behavioral context: polling behavior, expected duration, and when to stop polling. It also describes return values (status, progress, results). This goes beyond annotations to fully inform the agent.

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 description is well-structured: first sentence states the purpose, then polling guidance in bullet points, a code example, status list, and return summary. It is front-loaded with essential information and each sentence adds value. No unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The tool has one parameter and no output schema. The description explains the statuses and that results are returned when completed. However, it does not detail the structure of the result data (e.g., fields or format). Since there is no output schema, more detail on the return format would be beneficial, but the description is still sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 has one parameter 'id' (string, required) with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by including a usage example showing a UUID and stating it is the agent job ID. However, it does not explicitly define the parameter format or constraints beyond the example. Still, the meaning is clear enough for correct invocation.

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 clearly states it checks the status of an agent job and retrieves results when complete. It distinguishes from sibling tools like firecrawl_agent (which starts the agent) and firecrawl_check_crawl_status (different job type). The verb 'Check' and resource 'status of an agent job' are specific.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use: 'after starting an agent with firecrawl_agent'. Provides specific polling intervals (15-30 seconds), patience advice (2-3 minutes minimum), and conditions to stop polling (completed or failed). Lists possible statuses with interpretations. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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