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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it is 'llms.txt-first', uses no browser, no LLM, no API key, and costs $0.01/call via x402. This helps the agent understand operational constraints without contradicting 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 four sentences, each contributing value: usage instruction, core functionality, operational constraints, and pricing. It is front-loaded with 'Give it a domain' and not overly verbose, though the payment detail could be considered extraneous for tool selection.

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 low complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, constraints, and cost. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., per-domain results), which would be helpful since there is no output schema. This is a minor gap for an otherwise complete description.

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%, with clear descriptions for both 'items' (domains to audit) and 'maxConcurrency' (parallel audits). The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; the phrase 'Give it a domain' even slightly misrepresents the array-based 'items' parameter. 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 states a clear action ('checks whether the site publishes a valid llms.txt / llms-full.txt... and whether robots.txt blocks...') and identifies the specific resources (llms.txt, robots.txt, named AI crawlers). It distinguishes from sibling 'ai-crawler-access-checker' by combining both llms.txt and robots.txt checks, making the scope explicit.

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 for when to use the tool: give it a domain, no browser/LLM/API key needed, and costs $0.01/call. It implies a lightweight audit, but it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives such as 'ai-crawler-access-checker' for robots.txt-only checks.

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