get_crawl_issues

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only restates the core action and says nothing about output format, pagination, crawl scope, URL format expectations, or whether the data is live or historical. This leaves the agent with little behavioral insight.

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 consists of a single concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place and it is easy to parse quickly.

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?

With one scalar parameter and an output schema present, the tool is not highly complex, but the description is still too thin. It leaves 'crawl issues and errors' undefined, does not clarify the expected site_url format, and gives no guidance on how this tool compares to its many sibling data-retrieval tools.

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%, so the description must compensate. The only added meaning is that the tool operates 'for a site', which barely clarifies the site_url parameter. It does not specify whether a domain root or full page URL is expected, or provide any format or examples.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get crawl issues and errors for a site.' It is unambiguous about the operation. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from related siblings like get_crawl_stats or get_crawl_settings, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 when to use the tool: when crawl issues and errors are needed. But it provides no context about when not to use it, no alternatives, and no clarification about how it relates to the many similar get_* sibling tools.

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