firecrawl_agent_status

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'check the status', which is vague. It does not indicate if the operation is read-only, what the status values are, or if there are side effects or polling behavior.

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 extremely concise, but it sacrifices essential information. A single sentence is efficient, but it lacks context that would help the agent. It is not overly verbose but is under-informative.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete for a tool that monitors an asynchronous process. It does not explain return values, potential delays, or how the status relates to the agent lifecycle.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameter 'id'. It does not. The description merely repeats the tool's purpose without clarifying what the id represents (e.g., agent job ID from firecrawl_agent).

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 verb 'check' and the resource 'status of an agent job'. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'firecrawl_agent' (which creates an agent) and 'firecrawl_check_crawl_status' (which checks crawl status vs agent status).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool or when not to. It does not mention that it should follow creating an agent via 'firecrawl_agent', nor does it offer alternatives or prerequisites.

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