Start the crawl

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the crawl is asynchronous, that it may return the record again with instructions, and that a retry after about a minute is expected. This is valuable behavioral context, though it doesn't mention side effects beyond starting a crawl.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every clause adds value. It efficiently covers prerequisites, retry behavior, and follow-up without wasted words.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the full calling context: when to call, what to expect, how to handle the retry case, and what to do next. Nothing an agent needs 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?

The input schema already documents the single parameter with a description ('tenant id returned by answerhatch_create_tenant'), and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no extra semantics about the parameter beyond referencing the sibling, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('Start the crawl') with a clear target ('for a registered tenant'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly referencing create_tenant for prerequisites and status for follow-up. The verb and resource are unambiguous.

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?

It gives explicit sequencing guidance: call only after the TXT record is published, and poll status afterwards. It also provides a retry condition with a wait time. This is clear when-to-use and when-to-use-alternative guidance.

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