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

No annotations exist, but the description discloses key behaviors: parsing, answering permission, listing sitemaps, and pricing/rate limits. Missing details on return format or error handling, but sufficient for typical use.

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 description is a single efficient sentence plus parenthetical, with no fluff. All information is front-loaded and earns its place.

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?

The description covers the main actions but lacks return format, edge cases (missing robots.txt), and parameter details. Given the lack of output schema and annotations, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 has 3 parameters with only 33% coverage (host has a basic description). The description does not add details for path or user_agent, leaving their format and constraints unclear. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate more.

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 clearly states the tool's actions: parse robots.txt, answer crawl permission, and list sitemaps. It uniquely identifies the resource and distinguishes from sibling web-intel tools like check_domain or dns_lookup.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (web intelligence, with pricing and free tier noted) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives. Siblings are distinct enough (e.g., whois, dns), so usage is implicitly clear.

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