firecrawl_crawl

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context about cost ('Cost is per page crawled') and the discovery/scraping behavior, which aren't evident from the schema alone. However, it doesn't disclose important traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'scrapes' entails (e.g., format of returned data).

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 extremely concise (three short sentences) with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by behavioral context and cost information. Every sentence earns its place by adding distinct value.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the basic purpose and cost implications but lacks details about return values, error conditions, performance characteristics, and how it differs from sibling tools. The schema handles parameter documentation well, but behavioral aspects remain underspecified.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'includePaths' and 'excludePaths' interact). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Crawl a website starting from a URL. Discovers and scrapes linked pages.' It specifies the verb ('crawl') and resource ('website'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'firecrawl_scrape' by emphasizing discovery of linked pages. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'firecrawl_map' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 description provides implied usage context through the mention of 'Discovers and scrapes linked pages' and the cost warning, suggesting this is for comprehensive website exploration rather than single-page scraping. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'firecrawl_scrape' or 'firecrawl_map', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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