read_crawl_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies read-only behavior by stating 'read completed results' and mentions segmented reading, but does not explicitly declare nondestructive nature, auth requirements, or rate limits. Adequate but minimal disclosure.

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?

Description is a single sentence, no fluff, and directly states the core purpose. Could be improved by front-loading the action, but overall concise and efficient.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations, the description lacks detail on expected output, error cases, prerequisites (e.g., job must be completed), and behavior beyond segmented reading. Incomplete for reliable agent usage.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameter meanings. It mentions segmented reading, which hints at offset and max_chars, but does not directly define job_id, offset, or max_chars. Insufficient detail given the complete absence of schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'read' and resource 'crawl results', with additional detail about segmented reading for long documents. It distinguishes from sibling tools like crawl_url (which initiates a crawl) and login tools, making its purpose specific and 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?

Usage context is implied: after a crawl is completed. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., crawl_url for starting, login for authentication). No 'when not to use' or prec onditions are stated.

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