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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: same-site link restriction, maximum depth, page limit, query-based pruning, and a clear credit cost per returned page. It does not cover error behavior or rate limits, but the safety and cost profile is substantially better disclosed than annotations alone.

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 compact and front-loaded: it leads with the core crawl action, then constraints, then optional query behavior, then cost. Every sentence adds useful operational detail without 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?

For a crawl tool with rich schema coverage and no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly: output format, same-site scope, depth/page bounds, query behavior, and credit cost. The remaining path-filter details are fully covered by the schema.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters, including include_paths and exclude_paths. The description reinforces max_depth, limit, and query behavior but adds little semantics beyond what the schema already states, making the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb and resource: crawl one website from a start URL and return its pages as Markdown. It also scopes the operation with same-site links, depth, and page limits, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as map or extract_url.

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?

Usage is implied by the crawl and Markdown-return framing, and the query parameter's ranking behavior is explained. However, the description does not say when to choose this over contextfetch_map, contextfetch_extract_url, or contextfetch_search, nor does it state exclusions.

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