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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely new operational context beyond those: the job is asynchronous ('returns a crawl id straight away') and each page consumed costs 1 credit, which tells the agent to budget the crawl. It does not cover failure behavior or rate limits, so not 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?

Three short sentences, correctly front-loaded: what it does, how to retrieve output, then the cost constraint. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing 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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent the immediate return is a crawl id and where to follow up (crawl_status), and all three parameters are described. Minor gaps remain around error handling or authentication, but for a straightforward async crawl trigger this is close to complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond the schema by tying 'limit' to a concrete consequence (1 credit per page scraped, so set limit to what you need), which gives the agent a reason to tune that parameter rather than just its range.

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 ('discover and scrape the pages of a website') plus the mode ('as one background job, following its links from a starting URL'), so the agent knows this is a recursive multi-page scrape. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the single-page sibling (scrape) or the URL-listing sibling (map), which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Implies when to use it (whole-site coverage via link following) and points to crawl_status for reading progress and results. However it never states when NOT to use it or names a competing alternative (scrape, map, batch) explicitly, leaving the usage boundary to inference.

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