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

Annotations already indicate idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond those flags: the 24-hour cache window, the 'cached' status behavior, server-side processing after timeout, and per-product persistence. It does not overstate side effects and matches the idempotentHint.

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?

Three dense sentences cover the pipeline, caching semantics, and timeout behavior without filler. The most important action and scope are front-loaded, and every sentence adds operational value. Minor formatting awkwardness ('returns status:"cached"') does not harm clarity.

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?

The description provides enough to decide when and how to call the tool and what to expect on cache hits or timeouts. However, with no output schema, it does not describe the shape of a successful first-run response or how the caller should retrieve the persisted per-product results, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 'handle' and 'context' are already documented in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable at baseline but not elevated.

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 names a specific action ('Crawl the tenant's website and run the enrichment pipeline') and enumerates concrete pipeline stages: Brand-DNA facts, product import, and site-image candidates. It clearly identifies the resource (tenant website) and the operational scope, though it does not explicitly contrast with nearby siblings like refresh_scrape or set_website.

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 gives practical call guidance: re-crawls are cached for 24h, repeat calls return 'cached' without spending a crawl, and long sites keep processing server-side if the call times out, so the agent should call again. It lacks explicit comparison to alternative tools, but the context for calling and retrying is clear.

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