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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds rich interpretive context: the distinction between a 'blanket wall' and a 'managed block list', and the meaning of the contradiction rate as an infrastructure default. It does not mention read-only nature or side effects, but for an analytics tool this is adequately covered by the described output intent.

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 sentences each earn their place: the first defines the core metric, the second explains the crawler breakdown and its analytical value. It is detailed but not bloated; however, the second sentence is somewhat dense and could be split without losing meaning.

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?

Given a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: the variables involved (vendor, crawler, contradiction rate), the threshold logic (in schema), and the interpretation. It does not spell out the exact response structure, but the dimensions are clearly implied, making it complete enough for correct invocation.

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 sole parameter `limit` has a 100% descriptive schema entry explaining its default and the 200-pair threshold. The main description adds no parameter-specific detail, so the baseline 3 for full schema coverage applies.

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 defines the tool's output: per CDN/WAF vendor, the share of domain-crawler pairs that robots.txt allows but the server blocks, with a crawler-level breakdown. It goes beyond naming the metric by explaining how to interpret it ('infrastructure default vs. site owner decision'), making it unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like domain_readiness or web_openness.

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 usage by fully explaining what the tool measures, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool over siblings or when not to use it. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, so the agent must infer context from the metric description alone.

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