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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'async,' which gives a clue about execution model, but it doesn't disclose whether the operation is read-only, how many pages it will crawl, whether it follows pagination, or any side effects or rate limits.

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 very brief, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It spends its few words on a near-tautology and an acronym, without conveying substantive information that would help the agent.

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?

Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and only two parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool does, what the expected output is, how max_pages works, or any behavioral details, making it nearly useless for an agent deciding to invoke it.

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 provides no parameter explanations. The schema defines 'url' and 'max_pages' with a default, but the description doesn't clarify their semantics, leaving the agent to guess how these parameters affect behavior beyond their names.

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 'Crawl site (async)' essentially restates the tool name with minimal added meaning. It doesn't specify what the crawl produces, what the scope of 'site' is, or how it differs from sibling tools like map_site or read_url, though the verb is somewhat specific.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as map_site, browser_interact, or read_url. The description doesn't provide context for appropriate use cases or any exclusions.

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