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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral details: fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits a single text blob in standard llms.txt format. This goes beyond the annotations and gives insight into the process without conflicting with them.

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: purpose, mechanism, and use cases. It is front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The description covers what it does, how it works, and the output format. Annotations provide safety and idempotency, and even without an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return value as a single text blob. For a simple read-only tool, this is complete and actionable.

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 covers both parameters (url and max_links) with complete descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter-specific semantics, such as how max_links affects output or how the URL is processed, so it stays at the baseline.

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 an llms.txt file for any URL, specifying the verb 'Generate', the resource 'llms.txt file', and the purpose 'so AI crawlers can index the site cleanly'. It distinctively separates from siblings by also mentioning auditing a competitor's AI visibility, but still focuses on the unique output of the tool.

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 clear concrete use cases: getting a client's site indexed, drafting for own project, or auditing a competitor's AI visibility. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusions, stopping short of a 5 which requires explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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