browserless_crawl

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the crawl model (seed URL plus depth-limited link following), sitemap discovery, path filtering, subdomain handling, and the shape of the result (per-page markdown/HTML plus metadata). It does not mention rate/retry behavior or that an incomplete crawl can partially fail, but the added context is solid.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence and structured into mechanism, capabilities, and return shape. The closing 'Useful for...' sentence is somewhat generic filler, but overall it is tight for a 17-parameter tool.

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 high-parameter crawler with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description does the right extra work by describing the return payload (markdown/HTML per page with metadata). The main remaining gap is that it never signals auth/profile requirements or partial-failure behavior, though the profile parameter is well described in the schema.

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% across all 17 parameters, so the schema already carries the per-parameter detail and a baseline of 3 applies. The description references depth, sitemap discovery, and path filtering at a conceptual level, which lightly maps to maxDepth, sitemap, and include/excludePaths, but it adds no semantics the schema lacks.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Crawl a website and scrape every discovered page') and explains the core mechanism (seed URL, link-following up to a configurable depth). It is clear on its own, but never names or contrasts against siblings like browserless_map, browserless_search, or browserless_smartscraper, so an agent still has to infer which site-traversal tool to pick.

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?

Usage is only implied via 'Useful for comprehensive site analysis, content extraction, and data gathering,' which suggests broad crawl scenarios but gives no explicit when-to-use trigger, prerequisites, or when to prefer a lighter sibling such as search or map. No exclusions are stated.

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