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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the crawl caps (30 pages for index, 20 for full), which tells the agent the tool silently truncates on large sites. It omits crawl time, rate limiting, and where the generated file goes, keeping it at a 4.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the depth-mode detail. Nothing repeats the title verbatim or wastes tokens.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains thin is the two optional metadata parameters and any indication of cost or latency for the crawl, but for a read-only generator this is close to 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates only partially: it fully explains the 'index' vs 'full' enum meanings and their page limits. siteName and description (with their 120/400 char caps) are never mentioned, so an agent gets no guidance on those beyond the raw schema constraints.

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 and artifact: "Crawl a site and generate an llms.txt," and immediately distinguishes the two output modes. It never names the neighboring tools (generate_sitemap, validate_llms_txt), so the differentiation is by resource name only rather than explicit routing.

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 clarifies which depth value produces which artifact, which is a form of usage guidance, but it says nothing about when to pick this over generate_sitemap or validate_llms_txt, or when generation is inappropriate. Usage is implied by the task name rather than stated.

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