veroq_crawl

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses cost (3 credits), constraints (max depth 3, max 10 pages), and return values (page content, metadata, discovered links). This is transparent for a read-oriented tool, though rate limits or error handling are not mentioned.

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 with clear sections (purpose, WHEN TO USE, RETURNS, COST, EXAMPLE, CONSTRAINTS). It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence provides necessary information without 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?

No output schema exists, but the description mentions return values (page content, metadata, discovered links). It covers constraints, cost, and an example. For a relatively straightforward crawling tool, this is sufficient, though more detail on 'structured content' formatting could enhance completeness.

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 an example showing usage with 'url' and 'depth', but does not provide additional meaning beyond the existing schema descriptions for each parameter. No significant extra value.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Crawl a URL and extract structured content with optional link following.' This uses a specific verb (crawl) and resource (URL), and distinguishes from siblings like veroq_extract by focusing on link following and multi-page crawling.

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 includes a dedicated 'WHEN TO USE' section: 'When you need to extract and analyze content from a specific webpage, or crawl a site's link structure.' This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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