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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about the process: it fetches the page, extracts key data, and emits a standard markdown blob. This clarifies what 'generate' actually entails and the output format, going beyond 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?

The description is three sentences: core function, process summary, and use cases. It is front-loaded with the primary action, every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, 1 required) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, how it works, and what the output looks like (a single text blob for site-root/llms.txt). Combined with annotations for safety, this is complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both 'url' and 'max_links' are fully documented. The description doesn't add extra parameter semantics but reinforces that the URL can be any site or landing page. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding significant new information.

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 clearly states the tool's function: generate an llms.txt file for any URL, with a specific process (fetch, extract title/description/key links, emit standard markdown). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on creating the file rather than analyzing visibility or presence.

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?

Explicitly lists three use cases: getting a client's site indexed, drafting llms.txt for a project, and auditing how an AI crawler sees a competitor. While it doesn't name alternative tools, the context is clear enough to know when to invoke this tool.

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