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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cost ('0.01 USDC') and the behavior of following links to a specified depth. However, it does not describe rate limits, robots.txt handling, or whether it returns page content or just troves of links, leaving notable gaps.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the cost detail is relevant. There is no filler or repetition; 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of URLs, page content, crawl report). It also lacks any caveats about potential costs beyond the flat fee. While parameters are fully covered, the missing output info and usage context make the description incomplete for a crawl tool.

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%, so parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, only restating 'up to specified depth' which is already captured by maxDepth. Thus, 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Crawl a website starting from a URL, following links up to specified depth.' It uses a specific verb ('crawl') and resource ('website'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like fetch_page by emphasizing link-following and depth.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it (e.g., for single-page fetches) or reference sibling tools. The cost mention is useful but does not serve as usage direction.

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