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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the key operational trait — the crawl is bounded by max_pages (1-20, default 5) — which tells the agent about cost/latency. However it does not state authentication needs, rate limits, behavior on failure (e.g., no contacts found), or whether the crawl follows subpages/sitemaps.

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, no waste, with the extraction scope front-loaded and the parameter constraint delivered last. Every clause earns its place.

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 2-parameter extraction tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, input format flexibility, and the crawl bound — enough to invoke correctly. Gaps remain around auth requirements and failure/empty-result behavior, but the essentials are present.

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 compensate, and it does: it clarifies that 'website' accepts a bare domain OR a full URL, and that max_pages ranges 1-20 with default 5. These are real semantics not present in the schema. It omits only edge cases like invalid domains.

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+resource ('Crawl a company website and extract emails, phone numbers and social profiles') that is impossible to confuse with siblings like enrich_company or lookup_domain. The output entities are enumerated, so the agent knows exactly what it gets back.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose (use this when you need contact data from a website), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no differentiation from siblings such as lookup_domain or lookup_business that might also yield company contact info. No alternatives are named.

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