crawl_accessibility_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the crawl strategy (breadth-first, same-origin anchors), limits (page/depth), the review engines used, the output status (pending-human-review), and what it deliberately avoids. It lacks details on auth, rate limits, or side effects, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 focused sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and scope, the second explains the review process and output, and the third clarifies exclusions. Every sentence 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 description gives a solid overview for a crawl tool, but with no output schema and only 25% parameter coverage, it leaves gaps: max_depth/max_pages are not defined, session_id is unexplained, and the report structure is only named, not described. It is adequate but not complete enough for an agent to use all parameters confidently.

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 description coverage is only 25% (only start_url is described). The description generically mentions 'page/depth limits' but does not explain max_depth or max_pages semantics, and session_id is completely undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds some context for start_url but does not compensate for the other three parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Crawl') and a precise resource ('ordinary same-origin anchor links'), then states the outcome ('returns one combined pending-human-review report'). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like run_accessibility_review by emphasizing the breadth-first multi-page crawl.

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 intended use case is implied: crawl same-origin anchor links from a start URL. The description gives negative guidance ('External links and unlinked SPA routes are not guessed') but never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over run_accessibility_review or another sibling, leaving the alternative selection to inference.

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