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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive, so the description's main added value is disclosing that execution is asynchronous and yields a crawl id consumed by get_crawl. It says nothing about credit cost (a credits sibling exists), duplicate-crawl behavior on repeat calls, or expected duration, so it adds context but leaves gaps.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the async/return-id contract is front-loaded where an agent will read it first.

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 output schema means return values needn't be explained, and the async-to-polling handoff to get_crawl is correctly conveyed. But for a 3-parameter open-world job launcher with 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the two tuning parameters and any cost/resource implications undocumented.

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 0%, so the description is the only place parameter meaning could live, yet it only gestures at seed_url and says nothing about max_depth or max_pages (defaults 1 and 10). An agent cannot infer what depth or page limits do or how they affect cost/time from either source.

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 ('start a crawl from a seed URL') plus the key behavioral modifier 'in the background'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling crawler-style tools like scrape_url, map_site, or fetch_url, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies usage through 'in the background' and 'Returns a crawl id for get_crawl', which tells the agent this is the entry point to an async workflow followed by polling. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus scrape_url, map_site, or fetch_url, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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