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

Annotations already declare the tool is read-only and non-destructive. The description adds 'Returns: ok,' but this is vague and does not clarify whether the response contains the robots.txt content or simply an ok status. Some extra context is provided, but it is not comprehensive.

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 extremely short, with two fragments, and is front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'Returns: ok' segment is of limited value and could be misleading, but the overall conciseness is appropriate for a simple tool.

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 zero-parameter tool with good annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. However, the return value is only vaguely described as 'ok,' and without an output schema, the agent is left uncertain about the exact response format.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the schema fully captures all inputs. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 identifies the resource (robots.txt) and its role as crawler policy, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_health and get_llms_txt. However, it lacks an explicit verb, relying on the tool name for the action.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools, leaving usage context entirely implied.

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