map_website

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior; the description does not contradict them. It adds context that the tool may contact external sources (sitemaps, CommonCrawl) or crawl the site itself, but it does not disclose rate limits, latency, pagination, or result-size behavior.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core purpose immediately and every word contributes to the meaning, even though the brevity leaves parameter-level detail to other parts of the definition.

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 description is minimally viable for basic use: it says the tool returns discovered URLs and names the available sources. But for a 6-parameter tool with no output schema, it lacks guidance on source selection, filtering, liveness checking, and asynchronous behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for correct 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries a heavy burden to explain parameters, but it only restates the sources enum in plain language. It adds no meaning for domain, max_urls, async_mode, url_pattern, or check_if_live, leaving most parameters semantically undocumented.

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 clear action ('Discover URLs'), a specific resource ('a website'), and the data sources involved. It does not explicitly differentiate map_website from the sibling crawl_website, and the mention of 'in-site crawling' creates some overlap, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 implies the intended use case: discovering URLs from a website via sitemaps, CommonCrawl, or crawling. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer map_website over crawl_website, scrape_url, or search_domains, and it offers no exclusions or alternative-selection criteria.

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