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 thoroughly: it enumerates all verdict values (blocked-403, challenged-by-cdn, inconclusive-not-bot-specific, etc.), explains that summary.blocked counts only bot-specific blocks while timeouts/errors are counted separately, and discloses the important caveat that requests originate from Cloudflare's network rather than the bot operators' IPs.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first clause, and the long verdict enumeration is justified because no output schema exists and the agent needs it to interpret results. The final robots.txt-token sentence is slightly redundant with the schema but reinforces an important exclusion, so it still earns its place.

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 and no annotations, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is fetched, what the response contains (per-bot status, WAF/CDN headers, verdict), how the summary is counted, and the network-origin caveat. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation or interpretation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it names the default UA set that userAgents falls back to and reiterates that robots.txt-only tokens are excluded. It adds little on url or timeoutMs beyond the schema, keeping it short of a 5.

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 URL with AI crawler user agents) plus the exact scope: per-bot reachability with a Chrome baseline. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like analyze_page, get_page, and analyze_site, which are content/audit tools rather than WAF-layer bot reachability probes.

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 clear context for when this tool is appropriate ('Reveals WAF/CDN-layer blocks that robots.txt audits miss') and clarifies what is out of scope (robots.txt tokens like Google-Extended are not probed). It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with any named sibling or state when NOT to use it.

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