crw-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks status and retrieves results, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'retrieve results' entails (e.g., format, pagination). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single, efficient sentence: 'Check the status of an async crawl job and retrieve results.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, results format, or error cases. Without annotations or an output schema, more context would be helpful, but it's not entirely incomplete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter clearly documented as 'The crawl job ID returned by crw_crawl.' The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without extra 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check the status of an async crawl job and retrieve results.' It specifies the verb ('check'), resource ('crawl job'), and outcome ('retrieve results'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings (e.g., crw_crawl, crw_map, crw_scrape), which prevents a perfect score.

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 implies usage by mentioning 'async crawl job' and referencing 'crw_crawl' in the input schema, suggesting it should be used after initiating a crawl. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., crw_map or crw_scrape) or any exclusions, leaving room for ambiguity.

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