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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and idempotentHint, so safety and external-fetch behavior are covered structurally. The description adds useful context beyond that: the data sources (homepage, sitemap, main pages) and the fact that the output is a file the caller must upload rather than a change applied to the site. It still omits failure modes (non-public sites, missing sitemap) and latency/limits.

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, front-loaded with the action and deliverable, then the value of optional inputs, then the selection condition. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 correctly explains what the artifact is and what it contains (who the business is, what it offers, where it works, which pages matter). For a 10-parameter generation tool the picture is nearly complete, though it could say more about what happens when the site is unscrapable or the sitemap is absent.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds relative-importance information the schema lacks: services, service area, hours and key facts are called out as optional details that 'make it stronger.' That tells the agent which optional inputs are worth collecting, not just what they are.

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 and artifact: reads a public website (homepage, sitemap, main pages) and produces a ready-to-upload llms.txt file. This is clearly distinct from the sibling generators (generate_business_schema, generate_boilerplate_schema) and from audit_ai_visibility, which only reports.

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 it when an audit shows no llms.txt,' which chains cleanly off the audit_ai_visibility sibling. It does not state the inverse (what to do if an llms.txt already exists) or any other prerequisites, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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