ghl_discover_website

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool returns an operationId and implies an asynchronous operation by directing the user to track progress separately. This is a useful behavioral disclosure beyond the schema.

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 sentences with zero filler. The first sentence states purpose, the second gives the operational handoff, making it efficient and structured.

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 description explains the tool's role, its async return, and the subsequent steps, which is adequate for a 3-param tool. It lacks a detailed output schema note, but the mention of operationId covers the key return value.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-specific insights beyond the schema's definitions, so it neither elevates nor reduces the score.

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 states a clear action: 'Start crawling a website to discover pages for AI training.' It distinguishes itself by referencing ghl_get_crawler_status and ghl_train_crawler_urls, making the tool's role explicit.

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?

It provides workflow context by explaining the return of an operationId and instructing to use ghl_get_crawler_status to track progress and ghl_train_crawler_urls to ingest. This frames the tool's position in the pipeline, though it doesn't list alternative crawl-management tools.

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