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: it 'fetches the page,' 'extracts title/description/key links,' and emits 'a single text blob ready to drop at site-root/llms.txt.' This explains the network fetch and output format without contradicting 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, front-loaded with the main purpose, then a brief process explanation, then use cases. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition of schema fields. It is concise, well-structured, and 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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, how it works, what the output looks like, and when to use it. The annotations cover safety (read-only, non-destructive), and the output is described as a single text blob ready to drop at site-root/llms.txt. No significant gaps remain.

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% for both parameters (url and max_links), so the schema already documents them fully. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning (e.g., 'any URL' implies broad url usage) but does not elaborate on max_links or its default. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema covers the parameters.

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 generates a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL, with a specific verb ('Generate'), a clear resource ('llms.txt file'), and a defined scope ('for any URL'). It also explains the process (fetches page, extracts title/description/key links) and output format, distinguishing it from any sibling tool in the provided list.

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 explicitly lists three use cases: getting a client's site indexed by AI, drafting llms.txt for your own project, and auditing how an AI crawler would see a competitor. This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, which would merit a 5.

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