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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description goes beyond them by disclosing the wait-then-background execution model and a per-page credit cost. That cost and async behavior are operationally important and not derivable from structured fields.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then execution semantics, then cost. No filler and every sentence carries distinct information.

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 required, and the description still characterizes the output as compact markdown. Combined with the async hand-off to ragfeed_crawl_status and the credit cost, it is nearly complete, though the single-page vs. crawl choice is still unaddressed.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, setting the baseline at 3. The description restates wait_seconds and adds the consequence that larger crawls continue in the background, but adds no new guidance on limit, max_depth, or the include/exclude filter syntax.

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 resource with scope: fetch several pages of one website by following links, returning compact markdown. That implicitly separates it from single-page siblings like ragfeed_scrape or ragfeed_extract, but no sibling is named, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

It points to ragfeed_crawl_status for crawls that outlive the wait window, which is useful routing. However it never states when to prefer this over ragfeed_scrape or ragfeed_map, nor any prerequisites, so usage is only implied.

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