Crawl Web Page (Legacy)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful lifecycle context the annotations don't carry: deprecation status and legacy-route parity. It says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, or size/page limits, so with annotations carrying safety it lands at a solid 3.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output. The 'legacy' concept is stated twice ('legacy Desearch /web/crawl route' and 'stays for parity with that route'), a minor redundancy that keeps it just short of a 5.

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 no output schema, the description does cover the return shape (plain text or HTML) and the deprecation/alternative story, which is what an agent needs to choose and call it. Missing only operational details like payload size limits or JS-rendering caveats for a read-only, open-world crawl tool.

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% (js, url, wait, format are all documented in-schema with an enum for format). The description's mention of 'plain text or HTML' only echoes the format enum values, adding no syntax or behavioral detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the parameter work.

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+resource (crawl a public URL) and the exact output shapes (plain text or HTML), plus the underlying route (/web/crawl). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'extract' by naming it, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative tool explicitly ('Prefer extract for new integrations') and gives the condition that selects it (new vs. legacy integrations), plus the reason this tool still exists (parity with the legacy route). Nothing about when to pick this versus extract is left to inference.

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