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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers key traits: same-origin restriction, a hard 10-page cap, breadth-first traversal order, per-page Markdown output, and — critically — that this is a paid call costing $0.16 USDC on Base via x402. It omits failure modes (timeouts, non-same-origin link handling) and how the x402 payment handshake must be performed, which keeps it below a 5.

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 zero filler: scope and output come first, then the cost. Every clause carries information an agent needs before invoking.

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 paid, two-parameter crawl tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope, traversal order, return format, and price — the essentials. The gap is the x402 payment flow itself (what happens on an unpaid request) and the default page count, which an agent would still have to discover empirically.

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%, so the description must compensate. 'Up to 10 pages' clarifies the max_pages ceiling, but the default value when max_pages is omitted is never stated, and the url parameter's role is only indirectly conveyed via 'same-origin' (the seed URL). Partial compensation, not full.

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 and resource (multi-page same-origin crawl) plus concrete scope (up to 10 pages, breadth-first) and output format (Markdown per page). It implicitly separates itself from single-page siblings like web_markdown and web_extract, but never names them, so differentiation relies on inference.

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 'multi-page, same-origin' framing implies this is for crawling a site section rather than extracting one page, which hints at when to prefer it over web_markdown/web_extract. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or sibling reference is given, so the agent must infer the routing.

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