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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations: dedupe of same-origin vs external links, dangling-CNAME sweeps, deprovisioned-service fingerprints, npm/PyPI registry lookups for install commands, and OSV MAL- advisories. It also honestly caveats 'evidence of a dangling service, not proof it can be claimed' and lists unmeasured items under notAssessed. A 5 is withheld only because response/caching details are left to the output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and resource, then layered with the three detection mechanisms and the detection-only caveat. It is dense but nearly every clause carries new information; only the long parenthetical chains risk slowing the reader.

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?

Given a dedicated output schema, full-coverage parameter docs, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies exactly the remaining needed context: what is inspected, how deep the checks go, and that results are detection-only with unmeasured items surfaced in notAssessed.

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%, so domain, format, and force_refresh are already fully documented inline. The description adds no syntax or format guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Inspect) and exact resources (/llms.txt and /llms-full.txt) plus the scope (links and install instructions an agent could inherit). An agent can distinguish this from check_agent_discovery or scan_domain without opening the schema.

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 context is implied by the description's framing (supply-chain inheritance risk in llms.txt) and the 'Detection only; not scored' caveat, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many sibling check_* tools.

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