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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already indicate a safe, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits standard llms.txt markdown. It also states the output is a single text blob for site-root placement.

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 concise (two sentences plus a list of use cases), front-loads the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality, process (fetch, extract, emit), output format, and use cases. It lacks notes on error handling or failure scenarios, but given annotations (openWorldHint) and simplicity, it is reasonably 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 baseline is 3. The description does not add new meaning to parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., max_links default and max are in the schema). The description's overall behavioral context is already captured.

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, specifying the verb 'generate', the resource 'llms.txt file', and the context 'for any URL'. It distinguishes from siblings as no other sibling tool performs this specific function.

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 lists three use cases (getting a client's site indexed, drafting for own project, auditing competitor) that indicate when to use it. It does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives, but the use cases are clear and relevant.

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