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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses only that page text is returned. It omits important crawl behavior such as depth and page limits, same-domain restrictions, link discovery, handling of duplicates or failures, and whether content is aggregated or returned per page.

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 single sentence is front-loaded, direct, and free of unnecessary wording. Its brevity leaves out useful operational detail, but the wording itself is efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Although invocation requires only one straightforward parameter, crawling is inherently complex and there is no output schema to clarify the result. The lack of crawl limits, scope, output organization, and differentiation from related tools leaves substantial uncertainty for correct selection and use.

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 100%, and the url parameter is already clearly documented as the "Root URL to crawl." The description adds no further meaning about accepted URL formats, crawl scope, or how the root URL affects traversal, so the high-coverage baseline applies.

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 clearly states the action ("Crawl a site"), resource, and basic result ("return page text"). It does not distinguish this multi-page operation from siblings such as scrape, extract, or analyze_url.

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 wording implies use for obtaining text across a site, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It also does not direct agents to scrape for single-page extraction or to other siblings for different tasks.

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