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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context by disclosing the resolution algorithm ('most-specific group only, longest match, allow wins a tie') and the surprising case where a '*' Disallow is overridden by an agent-specific group.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with no filler. The second sentence is slightly dense but earns its place by flagging a non-obvious result case; the match-rule clause is the only place wording could be tightened.

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 read-only analysis tool with no output schema, the description conveys scope, resolution semantics, and a hint at what the result surfaces (where a '*' Disallow does not apply). The exact output shape is left unstated, but the agent has enough to invoke it 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 50%: 'path' is documented ('Path to test, default /') but 'domain' has no schema description. The description refers repeatedly to 'a domain's robots.txt', giving implicit meaning to the domain parameter, but it adds no syntax, format, or default details beyond the schema. This is the baseline 3 for partial coverage.

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 ('Resolve') and resource (a domain's robots.txt) and scopes it clearly to 'every named answer engine, search index and training crawler'. It is easy to distinguish from a single-path test like crawler_path, though it never names a sibling 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 implied by the description of what is resolved, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance, no statement of when-not to use it, and no routing to alternatives such as crawler_path or fix_robots. The second sentence explains output value rather than invocation context.

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