spider_crawl

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't disclose that this is a long-running, high-cost operation, rate limiting, permission requirements, or what 'store_data' actually mutates in Spider Cloud – significant gaps for an 18-parameter mutation-capable crawl.

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 waste, though it is arguably too terse for an 18-parameter tool. Efficient phrasing that earns its place but under-delivers given the complexity.

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 an 18-parameter crawl with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers almost none of what an agent needs: cost/time expectations, parameter interactions, or the effect of store_data. Inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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 reported 0% (raw schema has empty descriptions), so the description must compensate. It mentions 'depth, limits, and filtering options' generically, leaving 15+ parameters – budget, blacklist/whitelist wildcards, stealth/anti_bot, proxy, store_data – completely unexplained.

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 a specific verb (Crawl) and resource (entire website) and lists the dimensions of configurability. It distinguishes itself from spider_scrape (single page) and spider_search (query-based) by scope, though it doesn't name those siblings explicitly.

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?

Implied usage: crawl an 'entire website' when you need multi-page coverage versus a single scrape. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternatives, so the agent must infer routing among the five siblings.

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