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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds behavioral context by noting it extracts from 'all accessible pages' and listing the specific return fields, which goes beyond simple operational safety. It does not fully disclose crawler limitations or rate-limiting, but with annotation coverage, this is acceptable.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and every clause adds value. It efficiently conveys purpose, output, and use cases with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers its purpose, output, and use cases adequately. It lacks minor details such as explicit mention of crawl limits or domains, but these are partially addressed in the schema and annotations, so overall it is sufficiently complete.

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% for both parameters, and the descriptions in the schema are clear. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Crawl') and resource ('a website'), and enumerates the extracted data (titles, meta descriptions, headings, body text, links, page structure). This differentiates it from sibling tools focused on DNS, SSL, tech stack, and WHOIS.

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 provides clear contexts for use ('SEO audits, content inventory, site mapping, or data extraction for analysis'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. This is clear context without exclusions, fitting a score of 4.

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