crawl_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is known to be non-destructive. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond that—no mention of potential errors, latency, or what 'status' means. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description is minimally adequate.

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 extremely concise: one clear sentence for purpose, followed by a compact parameter list. Every word is necessary and front-loaded. No redundancy or fluff.

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 status-check tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter origin. However, it lacks guidance on when to use it (e.g., after crawl_site), error states (invalid crawl_id), or how long the check might take. This is sufficient for a synchronous read, but slightly incomplete given the sibling tools.

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 only parameter, 'crawl_id', is described as 'The crawl_id returned by crawl_site', which adds significant meaning beyond the input schema's type and title (which have no description). This tells the agent exactly where the value comes from, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Check the status of a running or completed crawl.' It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('status of a crawl'), and the distinction from sibling tools like crawl_site (start) and delete_crawl (remove) is implicit.

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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., that crawl_site must have been called first) or situations where this tool is inappropriate. The sibling tools list is provided, but the description does not leverage it to guide selection.

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