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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that pages are extracted to clean Markdown, concatenated with URLs, stays within the same site section, and is bounded by depth and page count. It doesn't mention potential edge cases or side effects, but covers the core behavior thoroughly.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with verb+resource and output format. Every sentence adds value: what it does, how it behaves, and how to control it. No fluff or repetition.

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?

Despite having no annotations or output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, output format, constraints, and budget control. It gives an agent enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100% for all 4 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the roles of depth/page count ('bounded by depth and page count') and max_tokens ('Use max_tokens to fit a budget'), but doesn't add new details beyond the schema, so it earns the baseline score.

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 uses a specific verb ('Crawl') and resource ('documentation site'), clearly stating the output ('one agent-ready context blob' of Markdown). It distinguishes itself from siblings like pack_repo (which packs code repositories) and search_docs (which searches, not crawls).

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?

Implies when to use it ('Crawl a documentation site from a start URL'), and clarifies constraints like staying within the section and being bounded by depth/page count. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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