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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden and does disclose genuinely valuable method context: requests originate from our server rather than the vendors' networks, so sender-address-based rules are not exercised, and the tool catches CDN/WAF rules blocking assistants. It omits cost, rate limits, and whether the check is read-only/non-mutating, which would complete the picture.

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 mechanism, then the caveat, then the value proposition, then the usage trigger. Four dense sentences with minimal filler, though the explanation of the four crawler names could be trimmed slightly.

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 should signal what comes back; it implies a per-crawler comparison of responses against the browser baseline and states the tool 'catches' blocked crawlers, which is enough for correct invocation. It could be more explicit about the returned result shape, but nothing essential for calling it is missing.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines 'url' and the baseline is 3. The description implies the target is a homepage ('requesting its homepage') but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema supplies.

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 precise verb (test), resource (how a website answers requests), and scope (user-agent strings of four named AI crawlers, GPTBot/OAI-SearchBot/ClaudeBot/PerplexityBot), plus the comparison method. An agent can immediately tell this apart from the sibling scan/check_files/fix_prompt tools 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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Use when a site looks correct but is not being cited.' This tells the agent when the tool is relevant. It does not name an alternative sibling or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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