smartcrawler_fetch_results

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

While annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the asynchronous nature of the operation, polling requirements, status tracking, and safe retrieval without side effects. The description doesn't contradict annotations and provides operational details not captured in structured fields.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage instructions, Args, Returns) and front-loaded key information. Some repetition of 'Keep polling until status is 'completed'' could be reduced, but overall each sentence adds value. The description is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool has annotations covering safety profile, an output schema exists (so return values don't need explanation), and the description provides comprehensive parameter semantics and usage guidelines, this description is complete. It covers the asynchronous nature, polling behavior, parameter meaning, and distinguishes from sibling tools - all essential context for proper tool invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter, the description fully compensates by providing comprehensive semantic information: it explains what request_id is ('unique request ID returned by smartcrawler_initiate'), its purpose ('to retrieve the crawling results'), usage guidance ('Keep polling until status is 'completed''), and provides an example ('req_abc123xyz'). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 the specific action ('retrieve results'), resource ('asynchronous SmartCrawler operation'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning it fetches results from a previously initiated operation using request_id. It differentiates from smartcrawler_initiate by focusing on result retrieval rather than initiation.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('to retrieve the results from a previously initiated crawling operation using the request_id') and provides clear alternatives by naming the initiation tool ('smartcrawler_initiate'). It also provides specific usage instructions about polling behavior and when to stop ('Keep polling until status is 'completed'').

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