Crawl stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. Beyond listing returned fields, the description adds nothing behavioral: it does not say what happens when startDate/endDate are omitted, how far back data goes, or whether results are paginated.

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 clause with no filler; the metric list is the most useful part and it comes first. The trailing 'etc.' slightly dilutes precision but costs almost nothing.

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 read tool with no output schema, the metric enumeration partially substitutes for a return-value description, which is helpful. Missing date-range default behavior and any routing guidance against the many sibling stats tools keeps it at merely adequate.

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%, including the useful 'call list_sites if unsure' note on siteUrl and the YYYY-MM-DD pattern on both dates, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the implicit point that data is daily-grained, which is weak but non-zero value.

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?

It names the resource (daily crawl data) and enumerates the metrics returned, so the agent knows roughly what it fetches. But the verb is only implied and there is no differentiation from close siblings like get_crawl_issues or get_page_stats, which overlap with 'crawl errors' and 'pages in index'.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_crawl_issues for error detail or get_sitemaps for coverage. The agent must infer selection from the tool name alone.

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