List a crawl's captured files

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: the download_url is short-TTL and fetchable with no further auth, and the returned field set is enumerated. It does not mention pagination beyond the schema's limit.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its differentiator, and no filler. The contrast with the DATASET is placed immediately after the identification, which is the right order.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return shape, and it does so (filename, size, version, source_url, download_url). Combined with 100% schema coverage for inputs and annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 parameter baseline is 3. The description goes beyond that by clarifying the crawl_id-vs-crawl selection semantics ('for one run, or its most recent completed run(s)'), which the per-parameter schema text does not fully spell out.

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 names a specific resource ('the ORIGINAL documents a crawl captured') and enumerates the file types and returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It also explicitly contrasts itself with the crawl's DATASET (extracted text), which is the nearest confusion point among siblings like writ_saved_crawl_data.

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?

It states the selection condition clearly ('use this when you want the actual files') and names the alternative artifact (the DATASET with extracted text). It also explains the crawl_id vs. crawl routing choice. It stops short of naming a sibling tool by name or listing exclusions.

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