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

Given no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the crawling behavior, that it returns only matching passages, and the output fields (URL, line, relevance score). It also adds the token-efficiency context. However, it doesn't explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or mention rate limits or error conditions, which would be useful given no annotations.

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, no filler. Front-loaded with the core function and output, then a use-case justification.

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?

The description adequately covers the tool's purpose, output format, and use case. It lacks an explicit note about potential network latency or lack of results, but the schema covers all parameter constraints. Given no output schema, the description's outline of return fields is sufficient.

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?

All 6 parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. The description itself doesn't add any extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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'), and specifies the exact return content (passages with page URL, line, relevance score). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pack_docs or get_file.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use: to answer a question from docs without packing the whole site. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or name specific alternatives like pack_docs or search_context.

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