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

The annotations only signal that the operation is not read-only, while the description discloses substantial behavior beyond them: robots.txt handling, junk/duplicate filtering, default blog inclusion, maxPages cap, async job semantics, and host-based default naming. This gives an agent an accurate model of side effects and lifecycle.

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 compact and each sentence earns its place: purpose, base creation behavior, crawl filters, async return, and a usage guardrail. There is no filler or unnecessary repetition of schema details.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the important non-obvious aspects: new-vs-existing base behavior, asynchronous job polling via get_website_import, crawl filtering policies, and a guardrail about not writing facts from unread sites. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly and know what to do next.

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 100% and the schema descriptions are already highly detailed, including defaults, optionality, failure modes, and URL path scoping. The description adds context like default naming and crawl filtering, but it does not need to restate the schema in full; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Crawl a website into a knowledge base', and explains the intended downstream use for an AI_TOOL_ROUTER. It also differentiates the tool from get_website_import by clarifying that this starts the import and returns a job to poll.

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 gives clear context: use this to ingest a website that has not been read, and use get_website_import to poll the resulting job. The 'Prefer this over writing facts about a site you have not read' is a helpful when-to-use rule, though it does not spell out broader exclusion cases such as when to reuse versus create a base beyond the knowledgeBaseId parameter.

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