Crawl

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does little beyond naming the output formats. It does not disclose network/HTTP effects, the need for storage_state to reach authenticated pages, per-URL failure behavior, or how partial failures surface, all of which matter for a 7-parameter crawling tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than genuinely concise, since key operational context is simply absent.

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?

With 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should carry more weight than one sentence. It omits authentication via storage_state, concurrency/timeout implications, and expected return shape, leaving the agent to reconstruct behavior from the schema alone.

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 timeout, dedup_mode, concurrency, remove_links, output_format and storage_state. The description adds nothing beyond restating the markdown/JSON choice, which the schema itself explains in more detail.

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?

States a specific verb (crawl) and resource (URLs) plus the extraction outputs (markdown or JSON), so the core action is unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling crawl_site, leaving the agent to infer whether this is a page-level or site-level crawler.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent is not told to prefer crawl_site for whole-site traversal or search for discovery, so tool selection against its two siblings rests entirely on the name.

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