Crawl issues

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds modest context by naming the data source (Bingbot) and issue classes (error codes, malware), but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or whether the list is per-site aggregate.

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 no filler. It is efficient, though it is terse enough that it verges on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description partially compensates by saying what the rows contain (URLs with error codes, malware). However, it omits any sense of return shape, ordering, or volume guidance beyond the schema's limit note, leaving gaps for a data-retrieval tool.

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 both parameters (siteUrl, limit) are documented in the schema, including the format requirement and the 'list_sites if unsure' fallback. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific resource ('URLs with crawl issues detected by Bingbot') and enumerates the kinds of issues ('error codes, malware, etc.'), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from list-style siblings. It stops short of naming the adjacent sibling get_crawl_stats (aggregate crawl statistics) that an agent might confuse it with, so it doesn't fully differentiate.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to prefer get_crawl_stats or get_url_info instead. The only routing hint in the whole definition lives in the schema ('Call list_sites if unsure'), not the description.

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