crawl_website

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions a monetary cost ($0.001 USDC via x402) but omits substance like read-only status, rate limits, external requests, or response format. This is minimal disclosure.

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 compact, front-loaded with the tool name and category, and includes a cost note in the second part. Each word contributes, but the extreme brevity leaves out necessary information.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should thoroughly describe the tool's behavior, return values, and usage context. It does none of that, leaving the agent with almost no actionable information beyond the tool name and cost.

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 a single generic 'params' field described as 'Tool parameters as JSON object', which adds no value about what parameters are actually expected. The description does not compensate or clarify any parameter details.

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 'crawl website' and labels it a 'Web & SEO tool', but it does not explain what crawling actually entails (e.g., extracting links, analyzing a site's structure). It fails to differentiate itself from sibling tools like web_scrape or read_url, so the purpose remains vague.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as web_scrape or get_og_metadata. There is no mention of valid use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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