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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: it performs a live probe against the site, the probe can itself trigger a WAF 403, and results carry confidence tiers requiring verification. That is meaningful context beyond the structured hints, though the probe's request footprint is not quantified.

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?

Three tight sentences, zero filler, with the core check front-loaded and the confidence-tier semantics following immediately. 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains what the result tiers mean (fail vs warn vs needs verification), which is the critical return-value context. The only gap is the undocumented outputFormat parameter, which an agent must guess at from the enum alone.

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 only 50%: 'domain' is documented in the schema while the 'outputFormat' enum has no description anywhere. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (no domain format constraints, no mention of output format options), so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (check), resource (robots.txt / live probe crawler blocks) and target actors (AmazonAdBot / Google ad crawlers), which clearly separates it from the Sulvo management siblings. An agent knows exactly what it inspects without opening the schema.

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 the scenario (verifying ad-crawler access) and explains how to interpret outcomes (high-confidence fail vs medium-confidence warn), but never states when to run this vs alternatives or prerequisites such as needing a live reachable domain. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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