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

The description adds significant context beyond the annotations: it clarifies that the tool reads the last stored reading and does not fetch the file, and explains the semantic nuance that 'unspecified' effectively means 'disallowed' due to catch-all Disallow rules, urging users to read the 'effective' field. This is valuable behavioral disclosure not present in annotations.

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 tightly packed sentences, each earning its place. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by state semantics and a crucial behavior caveat. No fluff or 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?

With no output schema, the description sufficiently sets expectations: it mentions the eight crawlers, llms.txt, three states, and the 'effective' field. It omits details like exact response format or error handling, but for a simple lookup with strong annotations, this is adequate and complete enough.

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 schema already fully describes the domain parameter (with stripping behavior) at 100% coverage. The tool description does not add extra parameter-specific meaning beyond restating that the tool operates on a domain's robots.txt. Baseline 3 applies because the schema handles the semantics.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to report which of eight tracked AI crawlers a domain's robots.txt admits and whether it publishes llms.txt. The verb is implied ('get') and the resource is specific ('AI crawler policy'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_sources and lookup_domain.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool (when you need AI crawler policy for a domain) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It notes that it reads stored data rather than fetching, which is a behavioral caveat but not a usage guideline relative to other tools.

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