Crawl a site (SearXNG companion)

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), yet the description adds substantial novel behavior: robots.txt best-effort, SSRF-guarded fetch pipeline, stable refs per page, and content caching that later fetch_content calls reuse, plus a prompt-injection warning about untrusted content. This is materially more than the structured fields convey.

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 and packed into a single dense but well-ordered paragraph; each sentence carries information. It is slightly heavy, but nothing is redundant with the schema beyond the max_pages range restatement.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not detail return fields, and it still sketches the manifest shape (URL/title/snippet, per-page refs). Combined with annotations and full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and chain it to fetch_content.

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 url and max_pages are already documented, and the description largely repeats the 1-30/default-10 range verbatim. It adds only indirect value by explaining what max_pages bounds (pages fetched) and what the resulting refs enable, so the baseline of 3 fits.

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?

Names a specific verb (crawl) and resource (website from a seed URL), states the traversal strategy (breadth-first, same-origin) and the bounded scope. It is instantly distinguishable from siblings like fetch_content or search_and_fetch, which it explicitly links to.

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 clear usage context: 'Use it to survey a site before reading specific pages,' and routes the agent to fetch_content with ref:N for the follow-up read. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use or naming a competing sibling by name, but the intended workflow is unambiguous.

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