crawl

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the store=true behavior (no body returned, only RID and metadata) which is good. However, it omits other behavioral traits such as default return format, error handling, rate limits, or permissions. It does not contradict annotations (none exist).

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 two sentences long, with the first sentence stating the core purpose and the second explaining the critical optional behavior. No redundant information. It is appropriately front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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 8 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers only the core function and store behavior. It fails to describe other parameters, return values, error conditions, or how it relates to sibling tools. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning to the store parameter by explaining the behavioral change. For other parameters (device, country, etc.), it adds no additional context beyond the schema. Overall, it provides some extra value but does not fully compensate for the low coverage that would otherwise be needed.

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 it crawls a URL and returns HTML content, which is a specific verb+resource. It also details the store parameter behavior. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like crawl_markdown or crawl_screenshot, leaving some ambiguity.

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 provides guidance on using store=true for storage, but lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternative tools. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for choosing crawl over its siblings.

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