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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description discloses the actual working behavior: it fetches robots.txt from the live site (open-world network read), inspects llms.txt, and goes further by generating a draft llms.txt from site metadata and sitemap – a non-obvious generative action that the agent would not infer from the annotations. It stops short of describing failure modes (unreachable site, missing robots.txt), which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 sentence with the primary robots.txt/crawler-reporting action front-loaded and the llms.txt drafting noted second. The parenthetical crawler enumeration is useful but makes the sentence long; it is dense without being redundant.

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 must convey what comes back, and it does: allowed/blocked/partially-blocked status per crawler plus llms.txt presence and a draft. For a one-parameter, read-only tool this is close to sufficient; only return-shape specifics and error behavior are left unspecified.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single param is documented as 'Any URL on the site', so the schema already carries the semantics. The description reinforces that the unit of analysis is the site (not an individual page), adding minimal but non-zero meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (read robots.txt, report AI crawler access status) and even enumerates the concrete crawlers checked (GPTBot, ClaudeBot, Google-Extended, PerplexityBot, CCBot, Bytespider). The secondary action – checking for and drafting an llms.txt – is also named, so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns. No sibling overlap exists among check_tells, lint_agent_md, manifest_cost or mcp_install_snippets.

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?

Usage is implied by the description (use it to learn whether AI crawlers may access a site), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The sibling list contains no competing crawler-access tool, so the absence of routing guidance is a minor gap rather than a harmful one.

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