firecrawl_crawl_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns both status and results (not just status), which is useful context, but it omits polling guidance, rate limits, and result format details.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool.

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 read-only status tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain the async/polling nature of crawl jobs or what 'results' entail, leaving clear gaps for an agent that may need to know whether to call repeatedly.

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 100%, so the single parameter 'id' is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline for high 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (status and results of a crawl job), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling firecrawl_crawl that likely starts a crawl. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative or state the relationship, so it falls short of a 5.

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 only says what the tool does; it gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of polling behavior. Implied usage is weak because no context is provided about the crawl lifecycle.

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