site_crawl

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it 'recursively follows internal links,' enforces a max_pages limit (with a max of 100), and lists returned per-page SEO signals (title, meta description, headings, issues). This goes beyond the annotation, though it does not discuss rate limits or robots.txt behavior.

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 well-structured: a clear opening purpose, a concise use-case paragraph, and an Args list. Every sentence contributes value—use cases inform when to use, and the Args section clarifies parameters. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given that this is a complex crawling tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, how it behaves (recursion, max_pages), what it returns, and when to use it. The only notable omission is the undocumented 'config' parameter, but the overall description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains url and max_pages, including default and maximum values, which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, the schema also includes a 'config' parameter that is completely absent from the description, leaving one of three parameters undocumented.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Crawl a website and return data for every discovered page (up to max_pages).' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by emphasizing recursive full-site crawling and listing concrete use cases like site-wide audits, internal link analysis, and orphan page detection.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use for site-wide audits, content inventory, internal link analysis, finding orphan pages, detecting missing meta tags across a site, or any task needing full-site data.' However, it does not mention when not to use it or compare it to alternative tools, so it lacks exclusions/alternatives.

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