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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the wait time (up to four minutes) and the async behavior (returns a job_id for longer crawls). It does not mention rate limits, authentication, or error handling, but the key operational behavior is covered. No contradiction with annotations (none exist).

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the core action and then add the timeout/job_id detail. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has five parameters with zero schema description coverage. The description only touches listing_url and omits js, fields, scroll, and max_items, which are likely critical for correct invocation. The asynchronous fallback is mentioned, but the parameter gap makes the description incomplete for a 5-parameter tool.

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 0%, and the description only references the 'listing URL' implicitly. It fails to explain the other four parameters (js, fields, scroll, max_items), leaving the agent to guess their meanings or defaults. The description adds no value for these parameters.

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 action ('Walk a site from one listing URL and extract every item'), identifying the resource (site) and the starting point (listing URL). It implicitly differentiates from siblings like extract_page (single page vs. whole site) and crawl_status (status checking), so an agent can distinguish 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?

It provides a clear usage condition: 'Waits up to four minutes; a longer crawl returns a job_id to pass to crawl_status.' This tells the agent when to switch to crawl_status. It does not explicitly list exclusions (e.g., 'use extract_page for a single page'), but the context is strong enough for routing.

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