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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), yet the description adds substantial context: it reads only robots.txt, /llms.txt and home-page headers, so a CDN or firewall can still block an allowed bot, and it explicitly states there is no score. The honorsRobots semantics and bot grouping definitions are behavior an agent could not infer.

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 purpose, then defaults, then the bots/findings semantics. It is long and packs several distinct ideas into run-on sentences, but nearly every clause carries needed meaning given there is no output schema.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so: it defines the bots groups (search/user/training), the honorsRobots flag, and the severity ordering of findings, plus what the tool cannot see. An agent has everything required to call and interpret it.

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 50% — url is undocumented in the schema, and the description compensates by explaining the url-omitted fallback to profile.siteUrl and the content-path derivation. workspaceId is already documented in the schema, so it needs no further elaboration.

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 and resource: which AI crawlers the site's robots.txt lets in, per bot, at the home page and at a content path. No sibling tool does anything comparable, and the scope (robots.txt/llms.txt/headers) makes it unmistakable.

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 clear context for calling it — without url it checks profile.siteUrl and the content path is the blog prefix import_sitemap detected — so the agent knows the defaults. It does not name exclusions or alternatives, but no sibling overlaps this function.

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