Google Crawl

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context the annotations cannot convey: rate limiting by Google, avoiding rapid repeats, and what to do when a result is blocked.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler. The primary capability is front-loaded and the operational caveat follows immediately after.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be restated, and the rate-limit/blocked behavior is well covered. However, with 0% parameter description coverage across three parameters, the definition is incomplete for correct invocation, particularly for max_chars and include_links.

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 0%, so nothing in the structured data explains url, max_chars, or include_links. The description names output fields but never defines max_chars (a default of 8000) or how include_links affects the returned outbound links, leaving two of three parameters unexplained.

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 (any URL), and enumerates exactly what comes back: title, meta, text, outbound links. That output list also implicitly separates it from the sibling search tools, which return query results rather than page content.

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?

Gives a concrete use case ("e.g. a search result") and an explicit fallback path for the blocked case (wait, or switch to an RSS-based tool). It never names a specific sibling tool or states when not to use this one, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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