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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it inspects the 'live' store's public-facing files, which is useful context, but says nothing about network dependence, latency, failure modes, or how results are reported.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a compact, scannable enumeration of what is checked. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 no output schema, the agent must infer the result shape, and the enumerated check list effectively conveys what categories of findings will come back. It does not explain result aggregation or whether per-check pass/fail detail is returned, but for a two-parameter read-only diagnostic it is largely sufficient.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage across both parameters, including when to omit store and when domain is required. The description adds nothing about these parameters, so the schema does the full job and 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Check the live store's crawlability') and then enumerates the concrete checks performed: robots.txt, /llms.txt, sitemap.xml, password protection, and product reachability. It does not, however, distinguish this from plausible siblings such as run_ai_readiness_check, which an agent may reasonably see as overlapping.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a pre-launch/SEO crawlability audit from the enumerated checks, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no alternative named (e.g., when to prefer run_ai_readiness_check). No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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