scan_domain

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 only states 'Crawl a domain' without disclosing behavioral traits such as potential impact on the target, rate limits, permissions required, or whether it stores data. This is insufficient for transparency.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences. The first sentence captures the core function, and the second provides usage context. Every word is purposeful, with no fluff.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters including boolean flags and patterns, the description lacks details on how these affect crawling results. It does not describe the output format or any limitations (e.g., crawl depth). The omission of behavioral context and return value specification makes it incomplete for a complex tool.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters, so the description does not need to add extra meaning. It adds no further details about parameters beyond the schema, maintaining the baseline.

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 explicitly states the action ('crawl a domain') and the output ('SEO-relevant page URLs'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools (analyze, get_stored_analysis, list_analyzers) by specifying it is for discovery before analysis. Thus, purpose is clear and specific.

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 says to use this 'to discover pages before running analysis', providing a clear contextual use case. However, it does not mention when not to use it or compare directly to sibling alternatives, lacking explicit exclusions.

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