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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond this by explaining the internal process (fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links) and the output format (standard llms.txt markdown blob). This provides insight into how the tool behaves without repeating annotation data.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main action. Two sentences plus a 'Useful for' list convey all essential information with no filler. Every sentence contributes meaning, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 tool with only two parameters, no output schema, and informative annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does, how it works, and the output format ('single text blob ready to drop at site-root/llms.txt'). It also gives practical use cases, making it complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 provides 100% coverage for both parameters (url and max_links) with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add additional semantic meaning about the parameters, relying on the schema to carry the detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate for high schema 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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') plus resource ('a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL') and clearly states the purpose ('so AI crawlers can index the site cleanly'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like ai_visibility_check or scan_competitor_ai_presence by focusing on producing a standardized file for any URL.

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 description provides explicit use cases ('getting a client's site indexed by AI, drafting llms.txt for your own project, or auditing how an AI crawler would see a competitor'), giving clear context for when to use it. However, it does not mention alternatives or when NOT to use it, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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