Crawl a site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well by explicitly stating 'Read-only, obeys robots.txt and paces itself,' which tells the agent about safety, rate-limiting, and site-respect behavior. The sitemap-seeding note adds useful context beyond the schema.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first defines output scope and contents, the second notes sitemap seeding, and the third covers safety and pacing. Dense but readable, with no fluff or repetition of the schema.

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 5 optional parameters, complete schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the essential behavioral profile (cross-page problems, sitemap seeding, safety) and is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly. It does not describe result format, but there is no output schema to leverage and the listed report categories imply the response shape.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a small reinforcement of the useSitemap behavior ('Seeds from the sitemap when there is one') but otherwise leaves parameter-level meaning to the already-complete schema.

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 clear verb and resource ('crawl a site') and then enumerates the specific cross-page problems it reports: broken URLs with referrers, duplicate titles and descriptions, missing basics as proportions, and deep-buried pages. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like find_broken_links and find_duplicate_content, which target single issue classes.

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 conveys that the tool is for site-wide, cross-page problems and mentions read-only behavior, robots.txt compliance, and sitemap seeding. This gives an agent clear context for when a full crawl is appropriate, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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