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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already present, the description adds useful non-obvious behaviors: same-origin crawling, an 8-page bound, clean Markdown output, and blocking of private/internal hosts. It does not cover every edge case but is transparent about core behavior.

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 and conveys all essential information without redundancy, filler, or unnecessary detail. It is well structured 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description clarifies the return format as clean Markdown and the bounded nature of the crawl. It does not specify failure behavior, but the given constraints and annotations provide sufficient operational context.

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 descriptions cover both parameters with 100% coverage. The tool description reinforces the limit semantics by explaining the 8-page total and same-origin scope, adding value beyond the schema's brief text.

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?

Description states a specific action ('Fetch a URL plus up to 7 more same-origin pages it links to'), the output format ('clean Markdown'), and key constraints ('bounded and synchronous', 'Private/internal hosts are blocked'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scrape_page or batch_scrape.

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 implies when to use it by noting it is bounded, synchronous, and limited to same-origin pages, plus the private-host restriction. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the behavioral constraints provide enough guidance for typical selection.

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