Crawl Error Summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does convey that this is a read-only aggregation over 'sampled pages,' which is useful, but it does not explain date-range behavior, permissions, data source, or what happens when no errors are found. It is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the tool's core purpose and scope.

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?

The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, and parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory. However, the description lacks date parameter semantics, usage context, and routing among sibling tools, making it merely minimally viable for reliable invocation.

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 50%, covering only site_url and sample_size. The description adds no meaning for the required start_date and end_date parameters, leaving their format and inclusivity ambiguous. It only indirectly maps to site_url and sample_size via 'property' and 'sampled pages.'

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 a specific action, 'Aggregate', and a specific resource, 'crawl and indexing errors across a property's sampled pages.' This distinguishes it from per-URL inspection tools like inspect_url, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus related tools such as analyze_site_health, inspect_url, or batch_url_inspection. No exclusions, preconditions, or alternative routing are provided; the use case is only weakly implied by the tool's name and description.

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