firecrawl_crawl

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions basic purpose. It omits important traits like rate limits, robots.txt compliance, async behavior (given the existence of firecrawl_crawl_status), or failure handling.

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?

A single sentence that immediately conveys the core action and result. No wasted words, though slightly more detail would be welcome without ruining conciseness.

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 crawl tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description fails to mention return format, async behavior (hinted by sibling status tool), or any operational context. Incomplete for effective agent use.

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 covers all parameters (100% coverage), so description adds no extra meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('crawl') and resource ('website starting from a URL') with a clear outcome ('return content from multiple pages'). This distinguishes it from siblings like firecrawl_scrape (single page) and firecrawl_map (probably URL listing) by emphasizing multi-page content extraction.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., firecrawl_scrape for single page, firecrawl_map for link mapping). Description only states what it does, not context for selection.

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