crawl_site_markdown

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that billing is per page and that output is one Markdown document per page, but it omits other relevant crawl behaviors such as rate limits, robots.txt handling, or error behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output, then immediately followed by the important billing constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 tool has no output schema, and the description clearly explains the return unit (one Markdown document per page). With 100% schema coverage, parameter details are adequately handled elsewhere, though the absence of annotations means additional behavioral context could still improve completeness.

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%, so all six parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description only reinforces the billing meaning of maxPages, adding little parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline of 3.

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 names a specific verb and resource: crawl a website from one URL and return one Markdown document per page. It gives useful examples (docs sites, blogs, knowledge bases) but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as read_url, which may still cause selection ambiguity.

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?

It implies the tool is for multi-page documentation, blog, or knowledge-base crawling and warns that billing is per page. However, it does not state when to choose this over read_url or web_search, nor does it specify exclusions or prerequisites.

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