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

The description discloses behavior beyond the annotations: it is read-only, requires no key/account/OAuth, makes no outgoing requests, and runs on live bytes the host publishes. It also describes the output shape (findings with severity, line numbers, fixes, per-crawler verdicts, agreement check). This exceeds what the annotations already declare.

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 information-dense but quite long and repetitive. It repeats the zero-argument fact many times, includes a full example call twice, and lists sibling routes at length. Every sentence adds some information, but the redundancy pushes it beyond concise. It is front-loaded with the key fact, but would benefit from trimming.

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 has zero parameters, an output schema is present, and annotations cover safety, the description fully prepares an agent: it explains what the call looks like, what the answer contains, what the tool does not need, and how it differs from siblings. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is 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?

With zero parameters, there is no schema to elaborate on, so a baseline of 4 applies. The description adds value by explaining that the empty arguments object works and that omitting the arguments key also works, plus an explicit example of the exact call. It doesn't need to do more because there are no parameters to document.

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 explicitly names the tool's action: producing a full RFC 9309 lint of this host's own robots.txt and ai.txt. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by stating it takes no arguments and lints this host's own files, not a pasted file. The title and description align on a specific verb+resource.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use when you want a zero-argument lint of this host's files, and explicitly contrasts with am_i_allowed, whoami, example, and other siblings. It also states that every other tool on this server wants a file pasted in, while this one wants nothing, providing clear routing guidance.

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