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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: it specifies the exact checks (robots.txt, llms.txt, sitemap) and the cost per call ($0.01/call, x402 USDC), which helps an agent understand the tool's side effects and commercial implications. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences plus a pricing tag, with the main purpose front-loaded. Every sentence is informative, and the pricing note is a useful operational detail. It's concise but not overly sparse.

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 2 simple parameters, a read-only annotation, and no output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to decide to invoke it. It explains the audit targets and the pricing. It doesn't describe the output format, but for a 'checker' tool this is relatively predictable and not a major gap.

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 100%: both 'websites' and 'maxConcurrency' have descriptive text in the schema. The description doesn't add significant parameter-level meaning beyond mentioning 'bulk audit' and the target crawlers, so it relies on the schema. 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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('which AI crawlers can access your website'), listing concrete crawler names (GPTBot, ClaudeBot, PerplexityBot, Google-Extended) and the audit elements (robots.txt, llms.txt, sitemap). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like llms-txt-auditor or ai-overview-tracker.

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 provides clear context: it's for auditing AI crawler access for AI search visibility (GEO/AEO) in bulk. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the usage context is well implied for an AI agent.

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