commoncrawl_lookup

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds that text fetching is optional and secondary to the index lookup. It does not disclose that text loading is capped at 5 hits, latency cost of fetching, or why readOnlyHint is false for an apparent search — those gaps matter since the non-read-only flag is surprising here.

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?

One compact sentence with the core action first and the optional side effect appended. No filler, though the example could be folded in more precisely.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers both the index search and the optional text fetch. Minor misses: no note on crawl selection behavior or result limits, but nothing that would lead an agent to call it incorrectly.

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 75%, so the schema already documents crawl IDs, the URL pattern format, and the text-fetch count with bounds. The description only echoes the optional text loading, adding no syntax or default guidance (e.g. newest crawl default) beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb + resource: it searches the Common Crawl index for archived pages and optionally loads page text. The 'z. B. Karriereseiten' example clarifies the intended domain, distinguishing it from the job/occupation lookup siblings by virtue of the archive source, though it doesn't name a sibling explicitly.

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 implies when the tool is useful (finding archived versions of pages, e.g. career pages) but gives no explicit when-not conditions and never mentions siblings like search_jobs that might cover live job data. Usage must be inferred from the example.

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