Crawl Website Source

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds critical behavioral context: it is asynchronous, returns immediately upon job acceptance, and `followLink: true` can ingest many pages (with a caution to use carefully). It also discloses error cases and authentication requirements. This goes well beyond what annotations convey and does not contradict them.

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 compact and well-structured: the first sentence states the core purpose and async nature, the second covers `followLink` behavior, and a third covers requirements, auth, errors, and related tools. There is no redundant or verbose phrasing; every sentence carries essential information, and the most important facts are front-loaded.

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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is thorough. It explains the async behavior, prerequisites, auth modes, error codes, and points to the wait variant. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing: the tool's purpose, constraints, and failure modes are all covered. The lack of an output schema is acceptable since the tool returns a job acceptance, which is described.

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?

The input schema already describes all three parameters (`url`, `appId`, `followLink`) with clear descriptions, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining the consequence of `followLink` (ingesting many pages) and clarifying the role of `appId` in B2B mode vs. app-token mode. While not a massive addition, it enriches the semantic understanding beyond the raw schema, so a 4 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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Crawl a website URL and ingest its content into an app's RAG sources'. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling `ethora-sources-site-crawl-v2-wait` by noting it is async and returns once the job is accepted, and it also identifies itself as a B2B/app-token variant. This is unambiguous and separates it from other source-management tools.

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 explicit usage conditions: it requires a selected app via `ethora-app-select` or an explicit `appId`, specifies auth modes (app-token vs B2B), details possible error codes (401/403, 400, 404) and their meanings, and points to the related wait tool `ethora-sources-site-crawl-v2-wait` for blocking completion. This gives the agent clear decision criteria for when to use this tool and what prerequisites must be met.

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