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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses a paid call ($0.03 USDC via x402 on eip155:8453), a crawl cap bounded by max_pages, robots.txt compliance, and a 30 s runtime ceiling. The notable gap is that it never says what the response payload contains or whether the payment is pre-authorized, though the finding list partially substitutes for an output schema.

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 dense sentence: billing/transport info is front-loaded, then purpose, then the crawl constraints, then the finding categories. No redundant filler; every clause carries information an agent needs to decide and call correctly.

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 paid, no-annotation, no-output-schema crawl tool, the description covers cost, protocol, chain, scope limits and the result categories as effectively as an output description. Only a brief note on response shape or partial-failure behavior (e.g., hitting the 30 s cap) would make it fully 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented (url format examples, max_pages range 3-40 default 20). The description adds only light context — that max_pages bounds the same-site crawl and that a 30 s cap applies — which is useful but thin beyond the schema baseline.

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 ('Internal linking audit: crawls ... pages') and enumerates the exact findings produced (broken links, orphans vs sitemap, click depth, dead ends, anchors, nofollow, duplicate titles, missing meta descriptions). That enumeration clearly separates it from broader siblings like seo_full_audit and seo_technical_audit without needing to name them.

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 scope: use it when you want an internal-linking/crawl analysis of a site. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over seo_full_audit or seo_technical_audit, nor any exclusions (e.g., 'for external backlink analysis use X'), so the agent must infer the routing.

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