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.