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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals that the result comes from stored evidence, includes quoted robots.txt rules, and discloses the tool's inability to assess some vendors—transparency that prevents misinference.

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 a single, well-structured sentence plus a short second sentence. It packs in necessary detail without fluff, though it is slightly long due to the crawler enumeration.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description fully explains what the agent will receive (per-crawler allow/block status, purpose split, quoted rules, and unassessable vendors). Nothing essential 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?

There are no parameters, and the schema covers 100% trivially. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds nothing about parameters because none exist.

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 states a specific verb ('whether ... allows or blocks') with a precise resource (robots.txt) and enumerates the exact set of AI crawlers and purposes. This distinguishes it from the sibling get_* tools, none of which cover crawler access.

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 clearly indicates the data source (latest deep scan) and warns about unassessable vendors so the agent does not misinterpret silence. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the unique scope makes this unnecessary.

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