Firecrawl: Crawl

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The phrase 'return crawl job metadata' usefully signals that the result is a job handle rather than page content, but the description does not say whether crawling is asynchronous, how to retrieve results, or what 'destructive' refers to for a read-style crawl.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; nothing is padded or redundant.

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 no output schema, saying it returns 'crawl job metadata' is the minimum needed, but the description omits how results are obtained from the job and what the destructiveHint means in this context, leaving an agent without the operational picture.

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 100% with only two parameters (url, maxPages), both documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond 'crawl a site' and does not mention the maxPages bound.

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?

States a specific verb ('Crawl') and resource ('a site') and adds what is returned ('crawl job metadata'), which distinguishes it from a generic fetch. However, it never differentiates itself from the sibling tools firecrawl_scrape and firecrawl_search, which an agent must choose between.

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 on when to use crawl versus firecrawl_scrape or firecrawl_search, and no stated preconditions (e.g., site size, robots/permission expectations). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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