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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuine behavioral value by disclosing exactly what it touches (public files plus one ordinary page request) and an important limitation (firewall rules keyed to crawler IPs are not visible), which the agent could not infer otherwise.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence leads with the core purpose and then enumerates coverage areas, each clause adding distinct scope information rather than filler. It is dense and slightly run-on, but no sentence is wasted.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description already covers scope, network behavior, and a meaningful blind spot. An agent has enough to decide whether to call it and what it will and won't see.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single 'domain' parameter, so the description carries the burden but adds no semantics — no statement of whether it takes a bare domain, a hostname, or a full URL (the 2048-char max hints URLs may be accepted). The parameter is nearly self-evident, so this is a minor but real 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource (check AI crawler access implicated by robots.txt) and enumerates concrete coverage areas: per-platform meaning, search index, submission points, security challenges, homepage noindex, llms.txt and Content-Signal. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like inspect_page_evidence or get_ai_source_landscape in substance, but never explicitly names a sibling to route against.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative, so the agent must infer applicability from the enumerated checks. The feature list makes the implied scope reasonably clear (site-level crawler accessibility audit), which lands in 'implied usage' territory rather than explicit guidance.

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