crawl

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'validated' config fields, hinting at input validation, but does not disclose return format, side effects, rate limits, or synchronous/asynchronous behavior. This is minimal transparency.

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, focused sentence with no wasted words. It is easy to parse and front-loads the core action, though it may be too terse given the tool's complexity.

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 two complex, open-ended config objects and no output schema, this one-sentence description is under-specified. It lacks information about return values, error cases, or how it differs from crawl_stream and crawl_job_submit, leaving the agent with significant ambiguity.

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 schema provides only property names with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates by naming Crawl4AI BrowserConfig and CrawlerRunConfig, which gives the agent a key reference for what the config objects should contain. However, it does not explain the fields within these configs or the urls parameter beyond the obvious.

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 tool crawls one or more URLs, providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like crawl_stream or crawl_job_submit, so it stops short of full distinction.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as crawl_stream or crawl_job_submit. The description solely focuses on the action without contextual prerequisites or exclusions.

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