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

Beyond the provided readOnlyHint and idempotentHint already carried by annotations, the description adds genuinely useful behavioral details: each non-cached domain consumes one scan unit, and slow sites are omitted with an indicator of which domain failed to be analyzed. This is exactly the type of rate-limit and partial-result disclosure that helps an agent.

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?

Three sentences cover what the tool does, which types of output it gives, why it is used, quota behavior, and inactivity timeout handling. Nothing is wasted and key information is up front.

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 tool is moderately simple, has a single parameter, and has an output schema available. The description provides the use case, the object being measured, the relevant metrics, the quota-consuming behavior, and the graceful degradation strategy. Everything an agent needs to decide and invoke the tool is present.

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 100%, and the description essentially repeats what the schema already states: list of 2 to 4 public domains or URLs. It does not add extra nuance such as URL format, whether protocol matters, or how domain matching works, so the baseline three is appropriate.

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 opens with a concrete verb-and-resource statement, then lists the exact comparison outputs: puntuación, nota, bots de IA bloqueados, llms.txt and problemas. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and clearly separates it from the unrelated sibling tools.

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?

It explicitly states the intended purpose: positioning a brand against competitors in generative-engine visibility. It does not spell out when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the sibling tools are so topically different that the context is sufficient.

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