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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and determinism are covered structurally. The description adds real content-level context by naming the classification axes (vendor, purpose) the response uses, but says nothing about response shape (flat list vs grouped) or ordering — minor for a zero-parameter lookup.

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 in which every clause earns its place: the resource, the two classification axes with their enumerated purposes, and the concrete payoff. Nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.

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 zero-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description supplies both the result content (tokens by vendor and purpose) and the reason to call it. Only the exact return structure is unspecified, which is a small gap given there is no output schema to lean on.

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 tool takes no parameters, so per the baseline the schema carries no semantics to supplement. The description correctly spends no words on argument handling and instead explains what the fixed result set contains.

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?

Specific verb+resource: "Lists the AI crawler user-agent tokens Atalaya checks," plus the grouping dimensions (vendor, purpose: training, search index, user-triggered fetch). It does not name the sibling check_ai_crawler_access, so the boundary between listing tokens and checking a specific crawler's access is left implicit rather than stated.

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 downstream use case — writing a robots.txt that admits AI search but opts out of training — which is enough context to know when to call it. It stops short of an explicit when-not or a pointer to check_ai_crawler_access for per-crawler verification.

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