Crawl a site by following links

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the same-host default and url_filter behavior, but omits other important traits like rate limiting, robots.txt handling, or the HTML/markdown output choice. It offers some transparency but not comprehensive coverage.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary behavior, and every word earns its place. No unnecessary elaboration.

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 complex 9-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description remains minimal. It covers the core crawl behavior but omits practical details like rate limiting, return format guidance, and the meaning of undocumented parameters.

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?

The description adds meaning for url_filter and implies depth/page limits, but the schema already describes 67% of parameters. It doesn't explain free_only or force_bright_data, which are undocumented in the schema, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 the tool starts at a URL, follows links up to a depth/page limit, and returns content from each page. This distinguishes it from sibling single-page scrapers like smart_scrape and site-specific web_data tools.

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?

Provides clear context by noting the same-hostname default and the url_filter option to restrict paths, implying multi-page crawling use cases. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool.

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