crawl_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose what kind of data is returned (URLs with issue types and HTTP codes) and implies a read-only listing, but it does not mention potential limitations, result format, pagination, data freshness, or any required permissions.

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 and free of filler. It front-loads the key concept (concrete URLs with crawl issues) and adds useful qualifiers in a single sentence, though it is a fragment rather than a complete sentence.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately states the core purpose and return content. However, it does not clarify response structure, ordering, limits, or whether the returned list is exhaustive, which an agent might need 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?

The single parameter siteUrl is fully documented in the schema, including its role and default environment variable. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3 even though the description itself adds no parameter-level detail.

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 identifies the resource (URLs with crawl issues found by Bing) and specifies the types of issues (HTTP errors, robots blocks, malware flags) and includes the HTTP code. It is clear enough to distinguish this from siblings like crawl_stats (aggregate statistics vs. specific URLs), though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'get'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as crawl_stats, url_info, or submit_urls. No exclusions or preconditions are mentioned, and the description does not reference any sibling tool or differentiator.

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