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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers real behavior: it returns a crawl id immediately (async), caps pages at the plan limit, and marks orphans as not_measured when capped. Auth specifics and rate limits are absent, but the operational traits given are substantive.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return behavior, then cleanly separated "Does NOT" constraints. No filler; every sentence adds signal.

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?

No output schema or annotations, so the description must stand alone. It explains the immediate return (crawl id) but not how the crawl is later consumed—sibling get_crawl_issues is never referenced—leaving a real gap in the workflow for a 3-parameter 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 0%, so the description must define the three parameters. "Multi-page" and "plan page cap" loosely imply pages, and "site you own" hints at site_id, but allow_subdomains is never mentioned and no parameter is explained explicitly.

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 ("Start a multi-page crawl of a site you own") and implicitly contrasts with single-page siblings like audit_page via "multi-page." Clear enough for routing, though it never names a sibling to distinguish from directly.

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?

"A site you own" establishes an ownership prerequisite, and the two "Does NOT" clauses (no keyword/rank checks, no whole-internet crawl) usefully bound when this tool applies. No explicit alternative is named, so it stops short of a 5.

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