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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation with dynamic results. The description adds minimal context beyond that, only mentioning extraction of titles, headings, text, and links. It does not disclose potential limitations like crawl depth, rate limits, or handling of dynamic content.

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 concise, uses a category prefix, and front-loads the purpose. The args section is clearly separated. However, the return format is not detailed, and the structure could be more standardized.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic functionality. It mentions extracted content types (titles, headings, text, links) but lacks details on formatting, error handling, or limitations like crawl depth or robots.txt compliance.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a basic example for 'url' ('e.g. 'https://example.com'') and explains 'max_pages' with its default. This adds some semantic meaning but is minimal; the parameters remain poorly documented.

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 tool crawls a website and extracts structured content (titles, headings, text, links). It uses a category prefix and verb 'crawl'. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'web-scraping__crawl_website', which likely has a similar purpose.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., other crawl tools or search tools). No when-not-to-use or recommended context is provided.

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