Crawl and audit a public site

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations by disclosing robots.txt compliance, crawl-delay application, no JavaScript rendering, no cross-host following, and bounded page count. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs to anticipate results; only the crawl bounds and delay defaults themselves are left vague.

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 no filler, and the crawl scope is front-loaded before the behavioral caveats. Nothing redundant, though it could have carried a few more parameter words at no real cost.

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 no output schema, the description says nothing about what a crawl returns (page records, issues found, statuses), and the two tuning parameters are unexplained. The behavioral framing is solid, but key call-shaping details are missing.

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 only 33% – delayMs and maxPages have no descriptions at all. The description mentions 'bounded' and 'crawl-delay' but never explains that maxPages/delayMs control those bounds, whether delayMs overrides the robots.txt crawl-delay, or the default values, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource ('bounded same-host HTML crawl') and defines the seed set (start URL plus same-host sitemap URLs). The 'same-host' scope cleanly separates it from edgeo_audit_page, which handles a single page.

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 scope constraints (same-host, HTML only, bounded) imply when it applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-a-sibling statement, e.g. crawl here vs. audit_page for one page. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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