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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds useful context (crawl ceiling of 50 pages, immediate generation with session authorization) but omits cost/payment implications, crawl duration, and failure behavior — significant given the Stripe invoice fields in the schema.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core capability front-loaded and no filler. The trailing sentence about session authorization is vague enough that it partially wastes its slot, keeping this below a 5.

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 six-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the what and the crawl scope but leaves the payment/session flow opaque, which is central given payment_intent_id, payment_session_id, and email parameters. Annotations cover safety, but the commercial behavior an agent needs to reason about is not explained.

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 all six parameters are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds only the page-count ceiling, nothing about how url, sitemapUrl, or excludePaths interact during the crawl.

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 ('Deep-crawl'), resource (website pages), and concrete output ('/llms-full.txt content index with full body markdown'), plus a hard scope limit of 50 pages. It implicitly differentiates from generate_llms_txt by naming the 'full' artifact, but never explicitly contrasts the two, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No explicit when-to-use versus generate_llms_txt, and no when-not guidance. The only usage-adjacent statement is the cryptic 'Generates full bundle immediately when session authorization is provided,' which hints at a prerequisite without stating what that authorization is or how to obtain it.

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