crawl_list

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: result ordering, that entries are summary-only, and that next_cursor is absent on the last page, which is what an agent needs to terminate a paging loop.

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, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the paging mechanics. No filler, no restatement of the tool name or annotations.

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 return-value burden and does so: shape (status and coverage), ordering (newest first), exclusions (no results), and the cursor contract. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and iterate this tool correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly further by spelling out the paging contract ('pass next_cursor as cursor') and the last-page sentinel, which the schema's terse cursor description does not convey. It stops short of restating the limit/default semantics.

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 (list), resource (crawls), account scope, ordering (newest first), and exactly what each entry carries (status and coverage). The '(no results)' parenthetical cleanly separates it from crawl_results, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

The '(no results)' qualifier implicitly tells the agent to reach for crawl_results when actual content is needed, and the pagination sentence gives the exact condition for the next call. It never names the alternative tool outright, so it falls short of an explicit when/when-not statement.

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