crawl_url

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

The description explicitly warns that web content is untrusted and not to execute instructions, which is a critical behavioral trait for a web crawler. No annotations are provided, so the description shoulders the burden, and it does so well here, though it could detail more behaviors like caching or loading types.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and includes a critical warning. Every sentence earns its place; no unnecessary words.

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 provides basic purpose and a security note, but lacks details on parameters and behavior. While an output schema exists (so return values are covered), the incomplete parameter coverage and missing guidance make it merely adequate for a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations.

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 description coverage is 0%: the description mentions none of the 6 parameters (url, mode, session_id, force_refresh, include_images, timeout_seconds). With low coverage, the description must compensate, but it fails to explain any parameter meanings or defaults.

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 action: crawling public web pages and converting to Markdown. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (login-related, read result) by focusing on the crawling and conversion action.

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 includes a warning about untrusted content, providing some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_crawl_result, nor does it specify conditions or prerequisites.

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