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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses async accept-and-return behavior, auth-mode requirements, specific 400/401/403/404 error conditions, and the broad ingestion consequence of followLink:true. This adds meaningful behavioral context and does not contradict the readOnlyHint:false or openWorldHint:true annotations.

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 core purpose and async behavior are front-loaded, and each following sentence adds distinct value: auth, errors, and the wait alternative. There is no filler or redundant material.

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 3-param external-ingest tool, the description covers auth, errors, async semantics, and the related wait tool. However, with no output schema, it never states what the accepted-job response contains, such as a job handle, so the agent may not know what to pass to the wait sibling.

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 the baseline is 3. The prose restates some parameter context, such as absolute URL, appId mode behavior, and followLink breadth, but adds little meaning beyond what the schema already documents.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Crawl a website URL and ingest its content into an app's RAG sources.' It also distinguishes this as the app-token/B2B variant and names the wait sibling, so the agent can tell it apart from nearby source-management tools.

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 clearly states that the operation is async, that followLink:true can ingest many pages, and it points to ethora-sources-site-crawl-v2-wait as the blocking alternative. It gives useful auth and error context, though it stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use statement.

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