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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world traits, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it reuses the latest record on file, scans first only when none exists, and fresh=true forces a scan. It also flags a provenance caveat ('the answer-engine output is drawn but never measured').

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the prose is dense and occasionally convoluted ('the stores and breaks', 'drawn but never measured', 'as an observed data flow'), which costs clarity. It is four tightly packed sentences where tighter phrasing would help an agent parse intent faster.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return burden and mostly does so by describing the artifact chain and the two output modes (one-line single-identity answer vs all identities plus stores/breaks). A few unresolved terms ('stores', 'breaks') leave minor ambiguity for a read tool of this complexity.

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 67% (only 'domain' is undescribed in the schema). The description compensates well for agent ('identity id or label' driving single-identity vs all-identity output) and fresh (forcing a scan), adding meaning beyond the schema text.

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 states a specific resource (each crawler's path into a domain) and what it reveals (where the path 'dies' along edge decision → robots.txt → page → JSON-LD → sitemap → llms.txt → entitymap.json). The chain of artifacts is concrete enough to distinguish it from siblings like scan_domain or verify_crawler_log, though the core verb ('shows/traces') is implied rather than stated outright.

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 explains how the agent parameter changes behavior ('Give agent... for one identity's path...; omit it for every identity') and notes the record-reuse vs scan-first behavior. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-an-alternative guidance (e.g. versus scan_domain), so routing to siblings is left to inference.

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