crawl_content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: conditional availability based on crawl output_format and content_status, exact return formats (raw HTML vs Markdown), max_chars truncation with default 20000, and a final note when truncation occurs.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then follows with prerequisites, output behavior, and the alternative. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or filler content.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned, in what format, how truncation works, and under what crawl conditions the tool can be used. It also routes to the correct alternative, leaving no critical gaps for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents crawl_id, content_id, and max_chars thoroughly. The description mostly repeats the same parameter information (content_id can be a content id or content_url from a crawl_results row; max_chars default 20000), adding little beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource: reading a stored page of a URL from a crawl, in the crawl's output_format. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming scrape as the tool for pages the crawl did not store, and by referencing crawl_results rows for content_id.

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?

Explicitly states when the tool works: only for crawls created with an output_format, and only for results whose content_status is fetched. It also names the alternative (scrape) for pages not stored by the crawl, making the selection decision unambiguous.

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