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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description usefully reinforces the closed-world behavior with 'Uses only supplied facts', warning the agent not to expect the tool to fetch the live site. It still does not explain what the caller receives (files? URLs? text blobs?) or any limits on generation.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the output artifacts and the closed-world constraint. No filler. It could be slightly tighter, but there is no wasted prose.

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 an 11-parameter, no-output-schema generator, the description is thin: it never says what form the generated artifacts take, whether they are returned inline or hosted, or how the many business-identity fields feed the templates. It answers 'what does it make' but not 'what do I get back'.

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 11 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It only clarifies one parameter's format ('services: one per line as Name|Price') and leaves url, name, city, region, areaServed, bookingUrl, businessType, email, phone, and description entirely unexplained. The lone format hint is valuable but does not compensate for the gap.

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 a specific verb (Generate) and the concrete artifacts produced: robots.txt AI-crawler rules, llms.txt, schema.org JSON-LD, and /.well-known/agent-catalog.json. This is far more specific than a generic 'fix' tool. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like agent_readiness_score or ai_crawler_audit, but the 'generate' framing implies a difference from scoring/auditing.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the sibling audit/score tools, no prerequisites (e.g., needing a live site vs. just facts), and no exclusions. The only hint is the title's 'free' marker, which does not guide selection.

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