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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it parses like crawlers do (groups, wildcards, longest-match), reports each bot as let in, kept out, or partly blocked, and provides notes plus a suggested choice. It does not mention size limits or exact output structure, but the key behavior is well disclosed.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the usage condition, then explains parsing behavior and output, and ends with a compact example. Every sentence contributes useful context without redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter parsing tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough to invoke correctly. It explains the input format via example, the parsing semantics, the expected report categories, and that no network access occurs.

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 single parameter is already well documented as the full robots.txt text up to 512 KB, with empty meaning no robots.txt. The description includes a helpful example of the parameter shape, but it does not add substantial semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific action: parsing pasted robots.txt text and reporting which of 22 named AI bots are allowed or blocked. It clearly distinguishes this pasted-text parsing tool from siblings like doorman_check_ai_bot_access and doorman_write_robots_txt by emphasizing 'Pure parsing, no network.'

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 gives a clear when-to-use condition: the user pastes robots.txt or has drafted one and asks which AI bots it lets in or blocks, or whether a change works. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use this one, so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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