Crawl-MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions JavaScript support and pagination, but lacks critical details such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what happens with large content. For a tool with 13 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 is highly concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by two brief usage tips. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand 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?

Given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers basic purpose and some parameter hints but misses behavioral aspects like performance, limitations, or error handling. The output schema mitigates some gaps, but for a web crawling tool, more context on usage scenarios and constraints is needed.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by hinting at 'wait_for_js' for SPAs and 'content_offset/content_limit' for pagination, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Extract web page content with JavaScript support.' It specifies the verb ('extract') and resource ('web page content'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'extract_structured_data' or 'extract_youtube_transcript' by focusing on general web crawling. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'crawl_url_with_fallback' or 'deep_crawl_site', which are similar siblings.

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 provides some usage guidance: 'Use wait_for_js=true for SPAs' and 'Use content_offset/content_limit for pagination.' This implies when to use certain parameters but doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'crawl_url_with_fallback' or 'multi_url_crawl'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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