broken_links

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and handles it reasonably: it discloses the depth cap, polite delay behavior, same-origin restriction, authorization requirement, and that it reports 4xx/5xx and fetch errors. It does not quantify rate limits beyond the delay or describe the exact output shape.

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?

Three tight sentences: it front-loads what the tool does, then constrains usage with the authorization and defensive-only caveats. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

For a 5-parameter crawl tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers scope, caps, and safety well. It stops short of describing the returned report structure or pagination/truncation behavior at the 40-page cap, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description only echoes max depth and polite delay, adding no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond what the schema provides — the baseline 3 for high coverage.

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 (same-origin links), plus the output (4xx/5xx and fetch errors). It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools http_status, seo_basics, and security_headers, which each target different concerns.

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 strong precondition ('Only use on sites you own or have explicit permission to test') and scopes it as defensive/informational only. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tools or describe when a single-page check (http_status) would be preferable, so the guidance is contextual rather than alternative-routing.

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