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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: 'safely crawl', 'same-origin' restriction, depth limits, robots.txt enforcement, and page provenance. This goes beyond annotations and clarifies potential surprises (e.g., robots.txt may block pages), with no contradictions.

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?

A single sentence of 28 words that is information-dense without fluff. It front-loads the core action and then adds key features, making it easy to scan and understand.

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?

There is an output schema, so detailed return values are not needed in the description. The description covers the tool's main functionality, constraints, and output concept ('agent-ready site map with page provenance'), making it complete for an agent to invoke properly. Combined with annotations and schema, it fully contextualizes the tool.

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. It explicitly connects to max_depth ('depth limits'), max_pages ('up to 10'), and respect_robots ('robots.txt enforcement'), but does not clarify include_external or url semantics directly. Parameter names are self-explanatory, but include_external's behavior is left ambiguous, leaving a gap in compensation.

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 uses a specific verb phrase 'Extract and classify links' and clearly defines the scope (one page or crawl up to 10 same-origin pages into a site map). It distinguishes itself from siblings like web.extract or web.robots-sitemap by focusing on link extraction and classification with crawling capabilities.

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 clearly conveys its use case (extracting/classifying links, crawling same-origin pages) and key constraints (robots.txt enforcement, depth limits). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately among the sibling tools.

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