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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explicitly states that the call blocks until the server finishes, that a 504 may still mean the job completes server-side, and that the user should verify with ethora-sources-site-list-v2. It also documents auth modes and expected error codes. This is far more than the annotations alone convey.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then immediately distinguishes it from the sibling variant. The auth and error details are dense but each sentence adds needed information, and nothing is redundant with the schema.

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 tool with four parameters and no output schema, this description gives the return shape, timeout cap, auth requirements, and failure paths. The timeout fallback guidance is especially valuable for an agent deciding whether to retry or inspect results. Nothing essential is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra context by explaining that appId is required in B2B mode unless already set via ethora-app-select and ignored in app-token mode, and by clarifying timeoutMs behavior in the error section. This exceeds schema-only information.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Crawl a website URL and block until the server finishes.' It immediately identifies itself as a single-call, long-timeout variant of ethora-sources-site-crawl-v2 with the same crawl and embed effect, which clearly separates it from the base sibling and the listing tool.

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 clearly implies when to use this variant: when you want the crawl result synchronously and can accept a long timeout. It names the sibling base tool and the list tool for post-timeout verification. It does not include an explicit 'use the base version instead when...' exclusion, but the variant relationship is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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