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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses synchronous behavior (no polling), same-host BFS, depth/budget limits, robots.txt honoring, and a unique billing model where the requested budget is charged regardless of returned pages. This goes well beyond a simple 'crawl a site' statement, though it does not cover error handling or authentication needs.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary action. It conveys essential behavioral and pricing information in two sentences without redundancy. Every clause adds value.

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 tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers core behavior, limits, billing, and robots.txt. It does not describe the output structure beyond 'clean markdown', but the overview is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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?

The schema already has 100% parameter coverage, but the description adds meaningful interpretation: 'page-budget limits' connects to limit and billing, 'depth' relates to maxDepth, and 'robots.txt honoured by default' clarifies respectRobots. It also explains the cost implication of limit, which is not evident from the schema alone.

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 crawls a site and returns clean markdown for every page, with specific details like synchronous execution, same-host BFS, depth and page-budget limits, and robots.txt handling. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fetch_webpage (single page) or map_site (URL discovery only).

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 context on when to use the tool (for crawling an entire site in one synchronous call) and mentions constraints like page budget and robots.txt. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the scope (site-wide crawl) implicitly differentiates it from single-page fetchers.

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