ingest_url

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses important behavior: it returns a READY/NOT-READY graph-quality verdict, explains the `relations` modes, and warns that `dev` ignores robots.txt and politeness delays and forces `respect_robots=False`. It stops short of describing registration side effects, idempotency, or permissions beyond the authorization warning for `dev`.

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 front-loaded with purpose and return values, then covers the two highest-risk parameters. It is somewhat long, but each paragraph adds useful operational context rather than repeating structured fields.

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 seven-parameter ingestion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives solid high-level context, return behavior, and safety notes for `dev`. It remains incomplete because several crawl-scope and concurrency parameters are undocumented, which matters for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all seven parameters. It adds meaningful detail for `relations` and `dev`, but leaves `url`, `max_depth`, `max_pages`, `concurrency`, and `respect_robots` largely or entirely unexplained beyond the schema's names and defaults.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it crawls a website, builds a knowledge graph, and registers it as a queryable site. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings such as ingest_local, and it also states the return values (site_id and graph-quality verdict).

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 'Crawl a website' and by the note that `dev` is for sites the caller owns or is authorized to test. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over ingest_local or other siblings, nor does it state when not to use it.

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