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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context: the specific crawler categories examined (answer vs training crawlers), the concrete homepage signals, and the pass/warn/fail result shape with plain explanations. It does not mention rate limits or cost, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the detail list, then the exclusion and alternative. Every clause earns its place, though the middle enumeration is dense enough that it could be tightened slightly.

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 a read-only single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, result shape (pass/warn/fail with explanations), and the sibling boundary. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and the single 'domain' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including that a full URL also works. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Technical check of whether AI engines can crawl and understand a website') and then enumerates exactly what is inspected: robots.txt crawler allowances, sitemap/llms.txt presence, and homepage signals. It also explicitly contrasts itself with measure_mentions, so an agent can distinguish it from alternatives without opening a schema.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('crawl and understand a website') and when-not ('It does NOT measure whether engines mention the brand'), plus a named alternative to use in that case. The routing is unambiguous.

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