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

Annotations carry only a title, so the description bears the full burden. It does disclose that output is plaintext on success (useful even though an output schema exists), but says nothing about whether the generated file is persisted, whether workspace permissions are required, or what a failure looks like.

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?

Two short sentences with a clear purpose-first opening. The second sentence mixes parameter requirements with return behavior, which slightly muddles the structure but wastes no words.

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 6-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage and no behavioral annotations, the description leaves too much unstated: three parameters unexplained, no parameter formats, no permission or persistence semantics. Only the return format is covered, and an output schema already handles that.

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 0% and there are 6 parameters, yet the description only touches workspace_id, sitemap_url, and block_ai_bots, and gives no type, format, or default for any of them. platform_preset, ai_bots_to_block, and additional_payload are wholly undocumented anywhere.

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 resource ('Generate a robots.txt') and names the producing system. It implicitly distinguishes itself from crawler_generate_sitemap by the artifact produced, but never contrasts the two explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance. The agent is not told how this relates to crawler_generate_sitemap or crawler_run_checker, nor what workspace_id must refer to.

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