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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, but the description adds important operational context: accepted log formats, a 5000-line limit, sitemap-based analysis, and a privacy warning that logs may contain visitor IPs requiring user consent. This is rich disclosure beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and bot list, then flows into output dimensions, input constraints, and privacy guidance. The bot enumeration is long but informative, and every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema and full schema coverage, the description still explains what the analysis returns (hits per bot, top pages, errors, redirects, crawl budget, never-visited pages from sitemap) plus input limits and privacy requirements. It is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameter descriptions are already documented. The description still adds value by specifying compatible log formats ('common or combined ... Apache, Nginx, Cloudflare, most hosts'), a line limit not present in the schema, and the purpose of sitemap_urls for finding uncrawled pages.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Analyse server access log lines to see what Googlebot, Bingbot and AI crawlers ... actually request'. Enumerates the exact bot set and output dimensions, making it immediately distinguishable from siblings like test_robots or ai_crawler_policy.

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?

Clear context for when to use it: supply raw lines in common/combined log format for bot-crawl analysis, with an optional sitemap to find never-visited pages. No alternatives or exclusions are named, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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