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

Annotations indicate readOnly (non-destructive, idempotent). Description adds behavioral details: fetches page, extracts title/description/key links, emits standard markdown. No contradictions.

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?

Description is concise with three sentences: action, process, use cases. No redundant words, information is front-loaded and easily scannable.

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 no output schema, description explains output format (single text blob at site-root/llms.txt). Parameter count low, annotations rich, no gaps in understanding what the tool returns or requires.

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 already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions including defaults. Description does not add new semantic meaning beyond what schema provides, so 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?

Description clearly states the tool generates a llms.txt file for any URL, specifies the action (fetch, extract, emit) and output format. It differentiates from siblings by focusing on generation rather than scanning or visibility analysis.

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 use cases: indexing client site, drafting own project, auditing competitor. No exclusion criteria or alternatives mentioned, but use cases provide clear context for when to invoke.

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