Docket SEO

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the shape of the result: a per-crawler verdict plus the deciding rule, which tells the agent this is a diagnostic tool rather than a boolean gate. It stops short of covering failure modes such as an unreachable site or a missing robots.txt.

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 well-formed sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. Every clause (what is read, which crawlers, what verdicts, which rule) contributes distinct information.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden well by specifying the per-crawler verdict and rule attribution. The remaining gap is behavior when robots.txt is absent or the site is unreachable, which an agent would want to know before relying on the result.

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% and the single url parameter is already documented with an example and the https:// default. The description's phrase 'the given path' aligns with the schema but adds no new format or constraint information, 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-plus-resource pair: reads a site's robots.txt and reports, per AI crawler, whether the given path may be fetched and which rule decides. The named crawler set (OpenAI, Anthropic, Perplexity, Google, Apple, Meta, Parallel) makes the scope unambiguous and clearly separates it from siblings like check_http_headers or trace_redirects.

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?

The purpose implies when to reach for it (checking crawler access to a path), but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no reference to the sibling tools that also inspect a URL. An agent must infer the selection boundary from the name and purpose alone.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds two useful behavioral facts: it reports the 'final' status code (implying redirects are followed) and it returns a verdict per header rather than raw values. Missing are any notes on auth, rate limits, or what happens when the URL is unreachable.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the return value (status code plus headers) and lists the concrete header names that matter. The trailing 'and others' is slightly vague but keeps the sentence short rather than enumerating everything.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description does the important work of explaining what is returned, which the absent output schema would otherwise have to supply. Only cross-tool routing 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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including the 'https:// is assumed' convenience, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no meaning about the url argument beyond what the schema already states, making the 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Returns the final status code and the response headers') and scopes it to search/security headers, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not name any sibling, so the boundary with trace_redirects or check_page_seo is left to inference.

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 by the phrase 'headers that matter for search and security', which hints at the diagnostic scenario but never states when to pick this over trace_redirects or check_page_seo. 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.

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety and network profile. The description adds real context by disclosing exactly what is fetched (the page plus its robots.txt) and what the report contains, which goes beyond the annotations. It stops short of disclosing failure behavior, whether JavaScript is rendered, or latency/rate considerations for an open-world network call.

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?

It is a single dense sentence with the primary action front-loaded and no filler. The enumeration of seven problem areas is long but each item carries information about the return shape, which matters because no output schema exists.

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 one-parameter read-only check with no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the report structure and the headline result (score out of 100, worst problem plus its fix). Remaining gaps are edge-case behavior on unreachable or redirected pages, which are minor for this tool class.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains the URL format and the implicit https:// scheme. The description adds no additional meaning about the url parameter, so the baseline of 3 for fully covered schemas 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 names a specific verb pair (reads page + robots.txt, reports a score) and a clear resource scope ('one web page'), plus concrete output categories. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as check_http_headers or check_ai_crawlers, so an agent must infer that this is the broad whole-page audit rather than a narrow subsystem check.

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: 'one web page' signals a single-URL audit, suggesting the sibling check_ai_crawlers covers a narrower concern. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, and no prerequisite or eligibility conditions stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld=false; the description usefully reinforces this with 'Fetches nothing', confirming it works only on supplied strings and makes no network request. However it omits the measurement basis that drives the behavior — pixel width vs character count, and which engine/device profile defines the cut-off — which is exactly the kind of non-obvious context an agent needs.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what it does and closed with the key scoping constraint. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 small two-parameter pure computation this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the description never indicates what is returned (measured lengths, cut positions, truncated strings) or which truncation limit applies. Those gaps leave an agent guessing at the response shape.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters and their meaning. The description adds only that both are fed through the truncation measurement; it does not explain that title is required while description is optional, or any length/format expectations, so the baseline 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 pair (measures, shows where cut off) on a specific resource (title and meta description as rendered in a search result). 'Fetches nothing' separates it from fetching siblings like check_page_seo, though no sibling is named outright.

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 it is for previewing user-supplied title/description text rather than auditing a live page. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among check_page_seo / check_http_headers / trace_redirects.

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

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 earns credit by disclosing what the operation actually returns — per-hop status codes and destinations — and by naming the specific conditions it flags (loops, chains of two or more redirects, temporary redirects, plain http landing pages). It does not mention hop limits, timeouts, or network failure handling, which are the main remaining behavioral gaps.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the core action first, followed by the enumerated findings. Every clause carries information; no filler or repetition of the title. Slightly dense as a single run-on clause listing, but not bloated.

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 description usefully compensates by describing the returned hop list and the flagged conditions. For a single-parameter read-only network tool that is close to sufficient; only operational limits (max hops, timeout) are absent.

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 url parameter already documents the https:// assumption, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema states, which is the expected baseline here.

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 concrete verb and resource — following an address hop by hop and listing each hop with its status code and destination — and enumerates the findings it surfaces. That makes it clearly distinct from siblings like check_http_headers and check_page_seo, though it never names them 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?

The usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when it wants to see where a URL redirects and whether a chain is problematic. There is no explicit when-to-use framing, no when-not, and no mention of alternatives among the sibling checks.

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