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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds valuable context: it enumerates specific AI crawlers checked, declares the tool is 'no browser, no LLM, no API key', and provides pricing ($0.01/call, x402 USDC). This goes beyond the annotations to set expectations about execution and cost.

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 concise, with two main sentences followed by a short pricing note. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Give it a domain. It checks...') and every sentence provides distinct information (function, constraints, cost). No fluff or redundant details.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not mention the return format or what the report contains. It focuses on the input and checks performed, but for a tool that likely returns a structured report, some output guidance would be helpful. The tool is simple, so it is workable, but the completion gap is noticeable.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (items and maxConcurrency), giving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add significant additional meaning for the parameters themselves; it only says 'Give it a domain' which slightly simplifies the array aspect. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function: checking for valid llms.txt/llms-full.txt and AI-crawler robots.txt blocks. It uses specific verbs and resources, making the primary purpose unmistakable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'ai-crawler-access-checker', which may also check crawler access, despite the 'llms.txt-first' hint.

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 usage by saying 'Give it a domain' and lists constraints like 'no browser, no LLM, no API key'. It also mentions 'llms.txt-first', which hints at priority, but it lacks explicit when-to-use versus alternatives or exclusions. The guidance is present but not fully developed.

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