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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden; it partially meets it by stating the output is 'group counts only' and that only public robots.txt files are fetched. However, it omits behavior on missing or invalid robots.txt files, redirects, request failures, and whether fetched content is normalized or cached.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence contains the resource, scope, and output limitation; every word earns its place. It is highly scannable and not padded.

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 tool with nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is far too thin. It does not identify the effective parameter for the robots.txt URL, define what 'group counts' means in the return value, or cover edge cases; an agent cannot reliably invoke it correctly.

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 schema has 100% parameter descriptions, but they are mostly unrelated to robots.txt: 'url' is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', 'host' is just 'Public hostname', and 'feed', 'json', 'path', 'city', and 'ref' refer to other concerns. The tool description never maps 'robots.txt' to any of the nine optional parameters, so an agent cannot determine whether to pass host, url, or something else.

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 names an exact resource ('public robots.txt') and a specific output contract ('return group counts only'), so an agent understands what the tool does. This clearly differentiates it from generic fetch/status sibling tools like web-fetch or fetch-status, which do not limit to robots.txt group counts.

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?

There is no statement about when to choose inspect-robots over siblings such as web-fetch, fetch-status, or domain-shape, and no exclusion for private or authenticated URLs. The only hint is the word 'public', which is not developed into explicit usage criteria.

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