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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the output is 'clean, RAG-friendly markdown' and that it can crawl from the given URL, extending beyond annotations. It does not discuss failure modes or rate limits, but given the annotation coverage this is acceptable.

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 sentences with no filler. The primary purpose and output are front-loaded, and the example is practical without extra verbiage. Every word earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description effectively conveys what it does, what it returns, and the required authentication. It doesn't specify crawl depth or edge cases, but as a convenience wrapper that may be intentional. The core information an agent needs is present.

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 both url and _apiKey are fully documented in the schema. The description includes an example call with both parameters, but that same example is present in the schema's examples field. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states it scrapes a single web page or crawls from it, producing clean, RAG-friendly markdown content. It identifies the exact resource and action, and names the underlying Actor. This is unambiguous and distinguishes it from any sibling doing similar work.

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 calls itself a 'Convenience wrapper' and gives an example, implying it is the go‑to for quick page scraping. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives like apify_run_actor or apify_dataset_items, nor any exclusions. Usage context is clear but not fully steered.

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