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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the crawl scope (homepages, contact and about pages) and the absence of an API-key requirement, which lowers setup friction. However, it says nothing about rate limits, latency, failure modes, or whether the crawl is best-effort, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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?

Two tight sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and scope. Every clause earns its place: the extraction targets and the source page types are exactly the information an agent needs, 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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description does substantial work by naming the exact fields returned and the page types crawled, effectively standing in for a missing output schema. It falls short only on failure behavior and result volume, which are less critical here.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the default of 5 pages per site. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb (crawl) and resource (list of domains), and enumerates the extracted outputs: business emails, phone numbers, and social profile links across five named platforms. It is clear about what the tool does, though it never contrasts itself with sibling lead-generation tools such as find_b2b_leads or verify_emails.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or statement of when this tool should be preferred over alternatives. The only routing hint is the operational note 'No API key needed,' which speaks to accessibility rather than tool selection. An agent must infer usage purely from the verb.

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