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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral nuance: it lists all 11 crawlers inspected, explains that crawlers serve different purposes (e.g., OAI-SearchBot vs GPTBot), and explicitly discloses the interpretive limitation that technical access is a precondition for citation, not a cause of it. This goes well beyond the annotation flags.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: the crawler enumeration, the checks performed, and the explicit boundary on conclusions are all relevant. It is appropriately sized for a tool of this breadth, with the caveat clearly separated as 'It does NOT.'

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 the tool's complexity—multiple checks across 11 crawlers, structured data validation, and llms.txt detection—the description covers purpose, scope, and interpretation thoroughly. It even sets expectations about what cannot be inferred. Since an output schema exists, return values need no additional explanation. Nothing operationally important is missing.

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 single parameter url is fully documented in the schema, including bare-domain normalization ('example.com' → https://example.com). The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the schema carries the burden; per the rubric, the high schema coverage baseline of 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?

The description opens with a specific, action-oriented statement: 'Measures technical crawler access and the page signals that affect whether an AI system can retrieve and parse a site.' It then enumerates the exact checks (per-crawler robots.txt rules, HTML vs JS, structured data, llms.txt) and explicitly distinguishes the tool from ranking/selection concerns, clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like audit_website or get_score.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to rule out or confirm a technical blocker.' It also provides a strong when-not boundary by stating it does not determine ranking, selection, mention, or citation. It does not name an alternative sibling tool for those ranking questions, so it lacks fully explicit alternatives, but the contextual guidance is clear.

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