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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the cost and core capabilities but does not disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, recursion depth, output format, or what happens if no keywords are found. The price and 'via x402' hint at payment but lack detail.

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 a single, compact sentence that includes the cost, the action, and the purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information, making it highly efficient.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain return values, pagination, error behavior, or how crawling results are structured. For a tool that could return a large number of pages, this is a significant gap.

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?

The input schema already documents all four parameters with 100% coverage, including types, limits, and descriptions. The description adds minimal extra meaning by tying 'keyword' to 'scan for target keywords' but does not explain parameter syntax or edge cases beyond the schema.

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 the tool's function: 'Crawl internal links of a domain, discover site structure, and scan for target keywords or signals.' It uses a specific verb (crawl) and resource (internal links), distinguishing it from siblings like web_scrape and web_search.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus web_scrape or web_search. The description implies use for site-wide exploration but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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