crawl_single_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns JSON data and is 'fast and lightweight,' giving some behavioral context. However, it does not specify what the analysis includes, whether it performs any mutations, or potential edge cases (e.g., redirects, JavaScript rendering). This leaves gaps that annotations would normally fill.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by a use case. Every word is purposeful, with no redundancy. It is concise and well-structured, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 is simple with 3 parameters and no output schema, so the description must convey the return expectation. It states that JSON data is returned but does not describe the JSON structure or any limitations. Given the context signals (siblings, rich schema), the description is largely complete but lacks details about the response contents, which prevents a 5.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, with descriptions for all three parameters: url, device, and extra_columns. The description adds no extra meaning beyond referring to 'the specified URL.' Since the schema fully documents the parameters, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Analyze a single page with SiteOne Crawler' and specifies it 'Returns JSON data for just the specified URL.' This distinguishes it from sibling crawl_site by emphasizing single-page scope and the phrase 'quick page-level audits.' The verb 'analyze' and resource 'single page' are specific and unambiguous.

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 says 'Fast and lightweight — use for quick page-level audits,' which provides a clear use case. It implicitly contrasts with crawl_site by focusing on a single page, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. The sibling tool names are visible via context signals, so the guidance is adequate but not fully explicit.

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