crawl

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

With no annotations provided, the description effectively discloses the tool's behavior: it performs a Google search, scrapes the top results, and returns structured Markdown. It does not cover potential rate limits or ethical considerations, but for a simple tool the coverage is good.

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 at two sentences, with the purpose stated first. Every word adds value; no redundancy or 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's simplicity and lack of annotations or output schema, the description covers the main functionality and return structure. It lacks an explicit link between the 'count' parameter and 'top results,' and could mention default count, but overall it is fairly complete.

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 already describes all three parameters (q, count, context) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level context beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the specific action: 'Search Google for a query and scrape the top results to Markdown.' It distinguishes from siblings like 'search' (which likely returns only search results) and 'scrape' (which likely scrapes a given URL), by combining search and content extraction.

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 usage for obtaining full-page content from search results, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings 'search' or 'scrape', nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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