crawl

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does functionally, but does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or any limitations. For a crawler that might hit external sites, this transparency gap is significant.

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, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. There is no wasted language, and it is appropriately front-loaded.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, but the input schema is thorough. The description is minimal, yet combined with the schema it provides enough to invoke the tool. However, it lacks any context about output structure, error behavior, or when to choose this over crawl_site, leaving some gaps for an agent deciding on usage.

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 schema has 100% description coverage with detailed parameter meanings, so the description does not need to repeat them. The tool description adds minimal value beyond the schema, merely echoing the markdown/JSON choice already present in output_format. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 a specific verb+resource: 'Crawl one or more URLs and extract content as markdown or JSON.' This distinguishes it from search and is reasonably specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool crawl_site, so it misses the 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention appropriate use cases, exclusions, or when to prefer crawl_site or search. The extensive parameter descriptions in the schema do not compensate for this lack of contextual usage guidance.

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