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

Discloses exactly what it fetches (robots.txt plus its health, the sitemap, homepage HTML) and the notable side effect of requesting the homepage once per crawler user agent — behavior annotations alone (readOnly/openWorld/idempotent) would not convey. It also frames the success output (verdict per AI product, exact fix, or 'nothing to fix') and the nuance that private paths like /api are meant to be disallowed.

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 purpose and crawler list, then usage scenarios, then read/return behavior — a logical progression with little waste. It is dense for a single detailed paragraph, and the long crawler enumeration is somewhat heavy, keeping it just below a 5.

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 complex, open-world crawl-checking tool, the description covers what it reads, the network behavior, what it returns, and the disallowed-private-path nuance. Since an output schema exists, it needn't detail return shapes, and what it does explain is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% with the single 'domain' parameter documented and exemplified (example.com, full URLs), so the schema carries this dimension. The description adds no syntax or format guidance beyond what the schema already supplies, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Check whether AI crawlers can reach a website') and enumerates the crawlers covered (OAI-SearchBot, GPTBot, ClaudeBot, PerplexityBot, Googlebot and 17 more), which separates it from siblings like list_ai_crawlers and get_crawler_activity. An agent can identify the job without opening the 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?

Gives explicit trigger scenarios: whether ChatGPT/Claude/Perplexity/Google AI Overviews/Copilot can read or cite a site, why AI answers ignore pages, or what to change in robots.txt. Clear context, but it never names an alternative sibling tool or states when NOT to use it, so not a 5.

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