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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating safe read with external effects. The description does not elaborate on crawling behavior (e.g., rate limits, robots.txt respect) beyond stating extraction, leaving gaps beyond annotation coverage.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. Core action and output are front-loaded; use cases are efficiently listed.

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 adequately covers outputs and use cases for a simple crawler. Missing details on error handling or pagination are acceptable given no output schema and moderate complexity. Rules state output schema not needed, but context is sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description does not add meaningful detail beyond the schema. It implies URL and max_pages but no additional semantics, meeting baseline.

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 website and extracts structured content, listing specific outputs. It distinguishes from sibling tools (DNS, SSL, tech stack, WHOIS) which serve different purposes.

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 lists use cases like SEO audits and site mapping, providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, though siblings are distinct enough.

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