flycrawl_crawl

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: read-only traversal, strict domain-boundary enforcement, API key requirement, credit billing (including failed-page exemption), JS rendering with anti-bot bypass, and error-return behavior. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a crawl that consumes credits.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by labeled sections (BEHAVIOR & SAFETY, AUTHENTICATION, RATE LIMITS & BILLING, etc.). Every section conveys actionable information; there is no filler.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description explains that output is aggregated Markdown or structured error JSON, and it covers auth, billing, domain scoping, and JS rendering. With all three parameters fully schema-documented, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 url, depth, and limit are already fully documented in the schema. The description alludes to 'configured depth and page limit' but adds no syntax, range, or interaction details beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('recursively crawl multiple pages of an entire website') along with scope constraints (depth, page limit, internal links). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from flycrawl_map, so an agent can tell them apart 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?

The 'DIFFERENCE FROM flycrawl_map' section gives explicit routing guidance between two closely related tools. However, it does not address when to prefer flycrawl_scrape, flycrawl_search, or flycrawl_extract, leaving some sibling selection to inference.

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