Extract contacts from a website

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that this is a bounded crawl (max_pages controls scope), which usefully implies runtime/cost characteristics, but says nothing about latency, rate limits, or whether results are cached.

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?

Two tight sentences with the capability front-loaded and the input constraints trailing. The second sentence is largely a paraphrase of the schema, which is the only minor redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description is nearly complete for this tool; only crawl-dynamics details (scope of crawling, subdomain behavior, expected duration) are absent.

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% and both parameters already document the domain/URL format and the 1-20 default-5 range. The description simply restates that same information, adding no syntax, format, or edge-case guidance 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?

The description states a concrete verb+resource ('Crawl a company website') plus the extracted artifacts (emails, phone numbers, social profiles), so an agent knows exactly what it produces. It is clearly distinct from the lookup_* siblings in mechanism, but it never clarifies its relationship to overlapping tools like enrich_company, which could also surface contact data.

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: the agent can infer 'use this when you need contact details from a live site.' There is no explicit when-to-use trigger, no when-not, and no routing to or from alternatives such as enrich_company or lookup_domain.

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