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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool checks 25 known AI crawlers, evaluates /llms.txt existence, reviews robots.txt hygiene, sorts findings by consequence, and is 'Free (no LLM calls)'. It doesn't fully describe output format or side effects, but 'audit' plus the detailed scope gives strong transparency.

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?

Three dense sentences lead with the tool's purpose, then explain the key consequence distinction, then enumerate checks and cost. Every sentence contributes operational value, and the structure front-loads the most important information without 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 one-parameter audit tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, crawler categories, hygiene checks, and cost model. It doesn't specify the return shape or explicitly route to alternatives, but the detail provided is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly with minimal ambiguity.

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 already documents the single domain parameter with an example ('yoursite.com'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it refers to 'site' generally but doesn't clarify format, normalization, or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Audit which AI crawlers a site allows or blocks in robots.txt'. It names concrete sub-checks (25 AI crawlers, /llms.txt, Sitemap directives, whole-site Disallow foot-guns) and a distinguishing consequence-based sort, making it clearly distinct from generic siblings like site_audit or ai_visibility_report.

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?

The intended use is unmistakable: run this when you need to audit robots.txt for AI crawler allow/block decisions and understand the visibility-vs-training consequence. It doesn't explicitly name alternative siblings or give when-not-to-use exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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