Get website crawl status

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by explaining that 'idle' means no crawl has run yet, but it does not detail other possible status values or behavior beyond that.

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 a single, direct sentence with a concrete example of the idle state. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or redundant information.

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 zero-parameter read-only status tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it states what is being reported, the scope of 'current or last', and the meaning of the idle state. The annotations cover the operational side effects, and the output schema can handle the remaining return-value details.

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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not a burden on the description. The schema fully covers this by defining an empty input, and the description appropriately focuses on the response semantics instead.

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 identifies the tool as returning the progress of the current or last knowledge-base website crawl, which is a specific resource and state. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling crawl_company_website, which initiates a crawl, and search_company_knowledge, which queries crawled content.

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 implies the tool is for checking crawl progress after a crawl has been started, and the 'idle' example signals when no crawl has run. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or give guidance about polling behavior.

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