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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses cost (~2 credits) and crawl scope (sitemap, top pages), which is useful. However, it omits auth requirements, rate limits, or output behavior, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by timing guidance. Zero waste.

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?

Covers purpose and cost, which is helpful. But without annotations or an output schema, the description should ideally state what the scan returns or any limitations. It's minimally adequate but leaves behavioral and return-value gaps.

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?

With only 1 parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the parameter is self-evident from the name 'website_url' and type 'string'. The description adds no parameter details but none are needed; baseline 4 applies for 0 described params.

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 specific verb ('Crawl') and resource ('website's structure') with parenthetical examples (sitemap, top pages). It is distinguishable from 'deep_scan_agent' and 'preview_deep_scan', though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 clear timing ('BEFORE creating an agent') and a use case ('deciding which company to set on the agent'). It lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to prefer deep_scan_agent), so not a 5.

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