crawl

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the return format ('array of pages each with markdown and per-page status') and hinting at scoping behavior, which goes beyond 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 compact—two sentences plus a clause—and front-loads the core purpose and when to use it. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage scenario, scoping advice, and return format are all covered without redundancy.

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 9 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, bulk use case, scoping advice, and return format. It doesn't mention performance or rate limits, but those are not critical given the annotations and output schema. It is sufficient for an agent to decide and call correctly.

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. The description adds meaningful guidance on how to use includePatterns/excludePatterns to scope URLs, which is not fully captured by the schema's individual descriptions. This elevates it slightly above baseline 3.

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 states a specific action ('Bulk-fetch markdown across a site') and clearly distinguishes it from single-page tools like 'scrape' by emphasizing bulk use cases. The mention of 'catalog ingestion, site-wide RAG corpus' makes the intended scope unmistakable.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this when an agent needs the contents of many pages at once' and advises pairing with include/exclude patterns, which gives clear operational context. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the bulk-vs-single distinction is enough to guide an agent.

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