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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose genuine operational traits: breadth-first order, same-domain confinement, the text return format, and a per-call cost of 5 credits. It stops short of rate limits, timeout behavior on large sites, or robots/politeness handling, but the cost and scope disclosures are exactly the kind of context annotations would otherwise provide.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by use case and cost. No filler, though the use-case sentence could be traded for parameter or limit guidance.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must fully specify behavior. It covers purpose, scope, return content, and cost, but omits how max_pages/max_chars_per_page shape results and what the returned structure looks like across multiple pages.

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 only 33%: url is documented in the schema, but max_pages and max_chars_per_page have no schema descriptions and are never mentioned in the description. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap on these two controls, leaving their effect on output size unexplained.

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 (crawl), resource (site), traversal strategy (breadth-first from a starting URL, same domain), and return content (clean text of each page). This is clearly distinct from the single-page sibling scrape_page in spirit, but it never names that sibling, so the differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Gives a use case ('building a knowledge base or RAG corpus') but no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternatives. Given strong sibling overlap with scrape_page, extract_content, and sitemap_urls, the definition should route the agent but does not.

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