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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds the key behavioral trait that the tool returns a crawl id immediately and that results must be retrieved later via crawl_status. This is useful beyond the structured annotations, though it does not cover failure modes or rate limits.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then covers the return contract and the alternative usage pattern efficiently.

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?

With strong schema coverage, safety annotations, and no output schema, the description tells the agent what the tool does, what it returns, and how to consume the result. That is sufficient for correct invocation and follow-up.

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 url, limit, and maxDepth. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond framing the job as whole-site crawling, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Discover and scrape a whole site as one job.' It also distinguishes itself from the scrape sibling by saying 'Use this instead of calling scrape in a loop,' making the tool's role clear.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use instruction with a named alternative: use this instead of calling scrape in a loop. It also tells the agent where to read results via crawl_status, so the consumption path is clear.

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