Crawl Status

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description's job is to add operational context. It does: it discloses the returned fields and the termination condition, which are not in the annotations. It does not mention polling costs, caching, or the full set of status values, which would have earned a 5.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the termination detail. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 carries the burden of describing return values, and it does name status and the three counters. The remaining gap is that the possible status values beyond "pending" are never listed, so an agent cannot fully reason about terminal states.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains that crawlId comes from crawl_start. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond that, which is the baseline case.

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 ('Report the progress of a crawl') and enumerates what is reported: status plus discovered/completed/failed page counts. It ties itself to the sibling crawl_start, which anchors it in the crawl workflow, but never explicitly contrasts itself with crawl_results, the sibling most likely to be confused with it.

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?

Gives a concrete operational cue: poll this until status is no longer "pending". That tells the agent when to use the tool and when it may stop using it. It stops short of explicitly excluding crawl_results as the tool for retrieving crawl content.

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