crawl_status

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It describes return values (status, pages crawled, error) but does not disclose behavior for invalid task_ids, completed tasks, or potential errors. With no annotations, this is a minimal adequate 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 brief and front-loaded with purpose. Two sentences plus a parameter line. No unnecessary words. Efficient for agent consumption.

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?

Given low complexity and existence of output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior. It explains purpose, usage, return fields, and parameter origin. Minor gap: no mention of error cases for invalid IDs, but output schema likely handles that.

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 0%, so description compensates by explaining that 'task_id: The task ID returned by crawl.' This adds crucial context about where to obtain the parameter value, beyond the schema's type and title alone.

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 verb 'check' and resource 'status of a running crawl task'. It distinguishes from sibling 'crawl' and 'status' by specifying polling after a task is started. The phrase 'Use this to poll after crawl returns a task_id' further clarifies its role.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this to poll after crawl returns a task_id.' This provides clear context for integration, though it does not mention when not to use or list alternatives. Still, the usage guidance is effective.

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