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

Adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it fetches the site as each crawler, detects firewall/CDN blocks, challenge pages, noindex and llms.txt, and returns a 0-100 score, per-crawler verdicts and top fixes. Runtime is disclosed, and the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile is consistent with the annotations.

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, followed by scope, detection capabilities, return values and runtime in four efficient sentences. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition or filler.

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 single-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description explains what is checked, what is returned, and approximately how long it takes. No critical invocation or interpretation detail 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage and already defines the single url parameter with an example. The description adds no additional parameter syntax, format rules or edge-case guidance, so the schema is doing the full parameter documentation job.

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: checks whether named AI crawlers can actually reach a website. It immediately distinguishes itself from a plain robots.txt check by describing real crawler fetching and firewall/CDN block detection.

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?

Clearly frames the use case: verifying real AI crawler access beyond robots.txt, including a useful runtime expectation of 15-60 seconds. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but no sibling tools exist and the context is clear.

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