crawl_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses key behaviors: incremental pagination via `since`, default metadata-only response, and the large size of full content ('hundreds of KB'). However, it doesn't mention potential rate limits, error responses, or job completion states, which would be useful for a polling tool.

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 compact at three sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then providing actionable polling and content guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's behavior.

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 polling tool with no output schema, the description covers essential usage patterns: incremental cursor passing, content size implications, and default behavior. It doesn't explain response fields beyond `nextCursor` or job lifecycle events (e.g., completion, errors), but it provides enough context for correct invocation. There is a small gap in describing what happens when the crawl finishes.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the `since` parameter's role in incremental polls and the `include_content` default, but these are already well documented in the schema. The only added value is the size warning, which is minor; the schema already carries the semantic weight.

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 specific verb 'Poll' and the resource 'a crawl job', explaining it tracks progress and pages crawled. It distinguishes itself from sibling status tools like batch_status and collector_run_status by explicitly targeting crawl jobs. The purpose is unambiguous and directly actionable.

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 gives explicit usage guidance for incremental polling: 'pass the previous response's nextCursor as since' and for content handling: 'set include_content true only when you actually need the text'. It implies this is the correct tool for crawl job status, differentiating from siblings via the focus on crawl jobs, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions.

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