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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that this is an informational, read-style retrieval and includes educational/legal disclaimers ('Educational only', 'Not financial advice', 'Not an FSP/CASP', 'DYOR'). It does not describe output format, size, or whether the tool has other side effects, but for a simple retrieval the core behavior is reasonably clear.

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?

The first sentence is tight, front-loaded, and immediately states what the tool returns. The remaining disclaimers are boilerplate and add little operational value, but they are short and do not obscure the core purpose.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool, the description gives enough to call it correctly with either variant. However, it omits the default behavior when 'variant' is not supplied, does not describe the return structure, and does not explain when this tool should be preferred over sibling tools like get_site_posture or list_directory.

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?

The input schema only provides a bare enum for 'variant' with no parameter descriptions. The description adds real meaning by mapping 'short' to llms.txt and 'full' to llms-full.txt. It does not state the default when the optional parameter is omitted, but the enum values are now semantically clear.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('the site's llms.txt map' or 'llms-full.txt'), with clear variant labels short/full. It does not explicitly contrast against sibling tools, but the named resource is distinctive enough that an agent can tell what this tool does.

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 description implies the tool is used when the agent needs the site's llms.txt map and implies a choice between short and full variants. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives among the sibling content tools, and no exclusion criteria.

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