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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers on the highest-risk ambiguity: an empty list means no issues found, not a failed or incomplete call. It also discloses a restraint guarantee (does not invent unobserved issues). It omits auth/permission needs and any indication of result volume, keeping it short of 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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what it returns, what it will not fabricate, and how to read an empty result. The most decision-relevant content leads.

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 and no annotations, so the description must cover behavior and returns. It handles the return semantics well (categories plus empty-list meaning) for a one-param read tool, though it does not describe the shape of an individual finding or how to act on one.

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% and the single required crawl_id is undocumented in both schema and description. The description's 'from a finished crawl' context implicitly ties crawl_id to a prior crawl_site result, which is modest value, but it adds no format or sourcing detail.

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?

Names a specific resource (cross-page findings) with a clear scope qualifier (from a finished crawl) and enumerates concrete finding types: duplicate titles, redirect chains, broken internal links, orphans. This distinguishes it from single-page siblings like audit_page and from crawl_site itself.

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 phrase 'from a finished crawl' implies usage timing but never states when to prefer this over audit_page (single page) or explain_finding (drill into a finding). No prerequisites or exclusions are given, so routing is left to inference.

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