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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and adds little beyond the purpose. It cites RFC 9309 as the evaluation rule, but never states whether 'robots' is raw robots.txt content or a URL, whether a network fetch occurs, or anything about the read-only nature of the operation.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with a front-loaded toolbox tag and no filler; it is appropriately compact, though the bracketed label consumes some of the limited space.

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 three-parameter tool at 0% schema coverage with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits too much — the meaning of 'robots', and any indication of the result shape, are missing.

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% across three parameters. The prose only gestures at 'user_agent' and 'path'; the required 'robots' parameter is completely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess whether it expects file contents or a location.

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 gives a specific verb ('測試' / test) and a clear outcome ('能否抓取某路徑' / whether a path can be crawled), plus the governing standard (RFC 9309). It is easy to separate from the write-side sibling seo__generate_robots_txt, but it never names alternatives explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'test' — an agent can infer this is for validating crawl access, but there is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of adjacent tools such as seo__check_site_crawlers or llms__check_ai_crawler_access.

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