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

With no annotations, the description does substantial work: it discloses the data sources checked, the output receipt contents (surface-by-surface state, search words, missing items), and the serving behavior (index when fresh <7 days, live-check otherwise). It also notes the tool is free. It stops short of stating rate limits, auth requirements, or error behavior, so it is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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 compact and front-loads the surfaces it checks before moving to the output and serving behavior. Every clause serves a purpose, though the long single paragraph structure could be slightly easier to scan.

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?

For a one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description sufficiently explains what is inspected, what the receipt includes, and how data freshness works. The main gap is the lack of domain syntax guidance, but the schema pattern partially covers that concern.

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 required domain parameter. The description refers to 'a domain' but adds no format guidance, examples, or syntax details beyond what the name and schema pattern already imply. It does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 names the specific resources it inspects (ai-catalog.json, llms.txt, agents.md, robots.txt AI directives) and the resulting visibility receipt, so the tool's job is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like crawler_block_test, but the breadth of surfaces checked implies a broader preflight inspection than a single block test.

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 phrase 'before you touch it' gives a clear temporal context for using the tool prior to interacting with a domain. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the trigger condition is stated well enough for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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