Crawl the site and audit every page

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond the safe-read annotations: it respects robots.txt, uses breadth-first crawling, restricts to one host, lists the audit checks, and gives an expected runtime of 1-3 minutes for 200 pages. This gives the agent a realistic picture of scope and cost without contradicting the readOnly/idempotent 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?

The description is a single dense sentence followed by a useful performance estimate. Every phrase adds information: scope, robots.txt compliance, audit categories, and expected runtime. There is no filler or repetition of the title.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description does a good job of summarizing both inputs and outputs: the audit categories and performance expectation are stated. It does not detail the exact response structure or how to use includePages, but the schema covers those flags, and the tool is a safe, idempotent read operation.

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 50%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters. startUrl, maxPages, and concurrency are not explained in the description; the phrase '200 pages take 1-3 minutes' hints at scale but does not clarify how maxPages or concurrency affect behavior. The description adds little parameter-level value beyond what the schema already covers.

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 what the tool does: a breadth-first crawl of one host that audits each page, with a concrete list of audit dimensions. It is distinct from page_audit because it covers the whole site, but it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 is implied by the description: run this when you need a whole-site crawl and audit covering the listed issues. However, there is no explicit statement about when to prefer this over page_audit, sitemap_check, robots_check, or other sibling tools, and no when-not-to-use guidance.

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