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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: same-origin only, bounded by maxPages, checks every linked URL, and notes false positives from external sites that block automated requests. However, it does not mention redirect handling, timeouts, or confirm read-only status. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 description is two sentences plus a useful note, with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the caveat about external sites is valuable. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers purpose, scope, return value (broken links with pages), and a key limitation. Without an output schema, it could be more explicit about the response format, but the described output is sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect. It is complete enough for its complexity.

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 parameters are well documented. The description adds context about the crawl scope (same-origin, bounded) and the external-site false-positive note, reinforcing maxPages and url meaning. It does not repeat schema details, but the added value is marginal beyond the schema.

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 and check) and the resource (linked URLs on a site), with specific scope (same-origin, bounded by maxPages) and returns broken links with pages. It distinguishes itself from siblings like sitemap_url_validator and domain_health_check by focusing on broken link detection through crawling.

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 gives clear context: it crawls a site from a starting URL and checks linked URLs for broken status codes. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but its specificity makes the appropriate use case (finding broken links across a site) obvious. It lacks explicit 'use instead of' guidance, so a 4 is appropriate.

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