crawl_domain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the crawl is bounded by max_pages and max_depth, which is useful, but says nothing about runtime (is this synchronous or a job polled via get_job_status?), politeness/rate limits, robots.txt handling, JS rendering behavior, or what happens on failure.

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 or redundancy. It is appropriately compact, though the compactness reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, but the tool is a potentially long-running multi-page crawl with four undocumented parameters and no annotations. The presence of a get_job_status sibling strongly suggests async execution that the description never mentions, leaving a material gap for correct invocation.

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 for all four parameters, and it does not. It merely echoes the names max_pages and max_depth without explaining units, limits, or interaction between them, and never mentions url or render_js at all — leaving the cost-sensitive render_js flag completely opaque.

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 scope: 'recursive crawl of a domain,' which implicitly separates it from the sibling crawl_url that presumably handles a single page. It stops short of explicitly contrasting the two, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than being told.

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 mention of when to pick crawl_url or batch_process_urls instead, and no prerequisites (robots.txt, rate limits, auth). The only usage signal is the word 'recursive' embedded in a one-line purpose statement.

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