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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it defines the tri-state found value (true / false including HTML catch-all pages / null with checked:false for blocked, erroring, or timed-out requests treated as unknown). It also discloses internal behavior such as RFC 9309 parsing, sitemap index following, gzip reads, and what aiBotStatus vs aiBotDisallows mean.

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 opening clause is well front-loaded, and semicolons separate concerns, but the body is a single dense semicolon chain including a long bot list that burdens parsing. Much of it is useful spec detail rather than filler, yet it is not economically expressed.

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 complex multi-endpoint probe with no output schema and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it names every checked resource and defines the result semantics needed to interpret them. The missing piece is selection guidance relative to sibling tools.

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?

Only one parameter, whose schema description coverage is 100% and already documents that a root domain or full URL is accepted. The description reinforces 'domain root' probing but adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb ('Probes') and resource ('a domain root') and enumerates exactly the artifacts inspected (llms.txt, robots.txt, sitemap, well-known files, Link header), so the scope is unmistakable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like analyze_page or check_bots, which is the main clarity gap.

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 statement of when to call this versus siblings (analyze_page, check_bots) and no prerequisites or exclusions. The parentheticals explain how to read outputs rather than when to invoke the tool, so selection guidance is left to inference.

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