crawl

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

Discloses that traversal is depth-limited, output is a list with titles/summaries, and that same-domain/link_filter constraints are respected. However, with no annotations, it leaves side effects unclear (e.g., whether it opens tabs or alters browser state, auth handling, rate limits) and doesn't describe execution mode.

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 pack purpose, output, and constraints without filler. Front-loaded with the core action; every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description supplies a high-level return shape (pages with titles and optional summaries) and covers core constraints. It doesn't detail the exact returned item structure, error behavior, or side effects, but defaults and parameter meanings are fully documented in the schema.

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 covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the role of link_filter and includes content summaries but adds no new parameter-specific meaning.

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?

States the tool's action ('Crawl'), resource ('a website'), and key behavior ('following links up to a specified depth'), plus the output ('list of discovered pages with titles and optional content summaries'). This clearly separates it from single-page siblings like fetch_page and extract_links.

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?

Implies the use case of multi-page link traversal from a URL, and mentions constraints (same-domain, link_filter), but gives no explicit 'when to use vs. alternatives' or exclusions. Siblings such as fetch_page/multi_fetch are not referenced.

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