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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description discloses hard operating limits (max six pages, 20 further internal targets, 45-second total budget), robots compliance for the audit crawler, and that no leads are stored. It also clarifies the request profile ('öffentliche GET-Abrufe'), which an agent needs in order to predict cost and side effects.

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?

One dense, front-loaded paragraph: what is crawled, then limits, then exclusions and safety. Every clause carries information, though the prose could be split into scannable sentences for faster parsing.

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?

A read-only crawler whose safety profile is already covered by annotations needs less, and the limits are well covered. But with no output schema and no hint of what the audit returns (findings, mismatches against expected_business), and with the nested object unexplained, an agent still cannot predict the result.

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 carries the full burden. The stated caps of six pages and 20 internal targets effectively explain max_pages and max_link_checks maxima, but the large nested expected_business object (name, hours, phones, address, services, location_type, approved_website_urls) is never mentioned, leaving its purpose and effect on the audit entirely undocumented.

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 action and resource ('Begrenzter HTTP-Crawl einer öffentlichen Website') and enumerates exactly what is collected (HTML, Kontaktlinks, Schema, robots, Sitemap). It does not name a sibling, so an agent must infer on its own how this differs from audit_page_snapshot or analyze_web_performance.

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?

Scope exclusions ('Kein Browser oder echter Suchbot-Test; externe Buchungsseiten bleiben ungeprüft') implicitly tell the agent when this tool is not sufficient, which is useful. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no explicit routing to the sibling tools that would handle browser rendering or performance analysis.

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