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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, non-open-world), and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the data dependency on the site crawl feed and the classification logic defining what counts as waste. It does not address result volume or pagination, so it stops short of 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?

Front-loaded with the core question, then the mechanism, then usage triggers, then a prerequisite. Every sentence contributes, though the three quoted example phrasings are slightly redundant with one another.

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 compensates by naming the URL categories returned and the required data source, which is what an agent needs to call and interpret it. Missing only minor operational detail such as whether results are ranked or truncated by top_n.

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 67% – min_depth and date_range are well documented in the schema (including inclusive-end and Sun–Sat week semantics), but top_n has no description anywhere. The description's 'deep (many clicks from the homepage)' phrasing loosely clarifies the depth concept but adds no threshold or unit detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 fits.

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 precise verb+resource ('surfaces ... URLs the crawler spent budget on') and enumerates the three categories it returns: deep, parameterized, non-200. It is clearly distinguishable from crawl-adjacent siblings like orphan_pages, internal_link_flow, and indexation_gap_diagnosis.

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?

Gives concrete trigger phrases ('crawl budget issues', 'are bots wasting time on junk URLs') that map user intent to this tool. It also states a prerequisite ('Requires the site crawl feed'), though it never names an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use condition.

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