Crawl a set of pages under an allowlist

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses per-page billing, async job semantics, non-disablable robots.txt respect, hard caps (500 pages, depth 5), the HTTPS allowlist requirement, and the plan gate. No contradictory annotation exists.

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?

Four dense sentences, no filler; the highest-stakes facts (cost, async workflow) come first and each sentence contributes distinct operational 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?

The description gives enough to invoke correctly: required allowedOrigins context, cost model, max bounds, async polling path, and auth requirement. It is slightly incomplete on pattern parameters and what the eventual job result contains, but the polling sibling is named.

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 43%, and the description compensates partly by adding cost-per-page meaning to maxPages and emphasizing the HTTPS allowedOrigins constraint. However, it never explains includePatterns/excludePatterns matching semantics, and maxDepth/maxPages defaults are left to the schema.

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 clearly identifies an asynchronous crawl operation over a set of HTTPS pages constrained by an allowlist, with cost, cap, and compliance facts. This distinguishes it from single-page siblings like domscout_extract_markdown or domscout_inspect_page, and title/description align.

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 gives clear operational context: submitting is free but costs per page, it returns a job ID to poll via domscout_get_job, and a Business plan is required. It does not explicitly name single-page alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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