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

Annotations already provide readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hintscanonical_for_relation:

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 organized into three concise labeled sections with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, usage guidance and behavior are clearly separated, and every sentence 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?

For a single-parameter, read-only audit tool, the description covers purpose, resource scope, usage boundaries, alternatives, and safety behavior. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly, even though no output schema exists.

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 only parameter, target, is already fully described in the schema as a website URL or local codebase folder path, giving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description itself does not add parameter-specific guidance, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 leads with a specific verb ('Inspects') and names concrete resources: robots.txt rules per user-agent, sitemap index validity, contradictory directives, and HTTP security headers. This clear enumeration of scope goes beyond the tool name and distinguishes it from body-crawling sibling tools.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool: inspect crawl configuration and indexation guardrails for Googlebot, GPTBot, ClaudeBot, and PerplexityBot. It also gives a clear exclusion ('Do NOT use for crawling page body content') and names two alternative sibling tools, leaving no ambiguity about selection.

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