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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that pages are not fetched, that the return value is URLs rather than bodies, and that authenticated responses may include an `id` for feedback. It stops short of disclosing cost/credit consumption, pagination of large maps, or error/permission behavior, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Five tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then triggers, then parameter effects, then return semantics, then sibling routing. No sentence is redundant.

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?

No output schema and no annotations make the description the sole source of behavioral information, and it covers action, return shape, alternatives, and session-id context. Gaps remain around large-site pagination behavior and the precise semantics of the sitemap enum, which a 7-parameter tool would benefit from.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate, and it substantially does: it explains what `search` does (narrows the URL list) and groups sitemap, subdomain, query-parameter, and result-limit options by their effect on coverage. It does not explain the sitemap enum values (include/skip/only) or default limits, so it is not fully compensatory.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Enumerate URLs indexed under one website... without fetching each page's content.' The negative clause immediately separates it from the content-retrieval siblings, so an agent knows this is an inventory operation, not a scrape.

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?

Gives three concrete trigger conditions (URL inventory request, locating several relevant pages, unknown target URL) and then explicitly routes alternatives: 'Retrieve one page with firecrawl_scrape; collect content across multiple pages with firecrawl_crawl.' When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both present.

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