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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds genuinely new operational context: plain HTTP fetches (not a headless browser), a 5-15 second runtime, free usage and a 15-checks-per-hour-per-client rate limit. It also enumerates which signals are probed and that findings come back with a 0-100 score and prioritized fixes.

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 action and the multi-bot probe list, then usage conditions, exclusions and cost in a compact final sentence. The crawl of bot names and artifacts is dense but each item is an actual output the agent may need to report; only the bot enumeration is longer than strictly necessary.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description covers what is returned (blocked/challenged status per bot, robots.txt rules, visible text without JS, JSON-LD types, sitemap, Markdown, llms.txt, score, fixes), how it runs, and how long it takes. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this 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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the baseline (which would be 3). The description adds the constraint that the target must be a *public* page, which is meaningful eligibility information beyond the schema's format example, though it stops short of further URL validation details.

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?

Starts with a concrete verb (fetches) and names the exact resources and scope: a public page fetched as a normal browser plus six named AI crawler user-agents, then reports blocking, robots.txt rules, text visibility, JSON-LD, sitemap, Markdown, llms.txt and a 0-100 score. It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling audit_landing_page, so an agent can separate this from design/copy auditing without opening either 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 an explicit when-to-use trigger (someone asks whether ChatGPT, Claude or Perplexity can see or cite their site, or why the site doesn't appear in AI answers) and an explicit when-not-to-use with the named alternative (design or copy -> audit_landing_page). Nothing about the selection decision is left to inference.

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