list_crawler_events

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

The description does not contradict the readOnlyHint=true annotation and adds minor context (daily granularity, specific crawlers). However, it does not disclose behaviors like pagination, ordering, or how 'tracked sites' are determined. With annotations covering the read-only nature, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the core subject. It is appropriately concise with no wasted words, and the parenthetical list of crawler names adds useful specificity without bloat.

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 simple list tool with optional filters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It omits any indication that the tool supports filtering, what the response format looks like, or how to interpret the data. The parameter semantics gap makes the tool incomplete for an agent to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (limit, crawler_id, site_key_id). The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to connect them to the data, leaving the agent without crucial filtering information.

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 identifies the resource (AI crawler visits) and indicates the type of data returned, but it relies on the tool name for the verb 'list'. It distinguishes from siblings by topic (crawler events vs. visibility, prompts, etc.), and the specific crawler names add clarity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or specific use cases, and there is no comparison to sibling tools like get_visibility_overview or list_citations. The agent is left to infer its purpose from the name and data description.

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