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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose side effects, authentication needs, or error behavior, but it only mentions that it returns group counts. It fails to mention that many parameters are discarded after a shape check (as seen in the schema) or that the tool may perform different operations depending on the parameter supplied, leaving agents unprepared for unexpected behavior.

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 a single sentence, which is concise in length, but it is not well-structured for the tool's complexity. It front-loads one narrow use case while hiding the tool's multi-parameter nature, and it omits any disambiguation or usage context. Conciseness without accuracy or completeness is not effective.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It does not explain the tool's multi-functionality, how parameters are selected, what responses look like, or when to use it. An agent would be unable to correctly call this tool beyond a naive robots.txt fetch and could easily misuse it for unrelated parameters.

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 descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides; for example, it does not clarify which parameter (if any) is used for the robots.txt URL. Since the schema is complete and parameters are self-describing, this is acceptable but not enhanced by the description.

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 states a specific action ('Fetch a public robots.txt and return group counts only'), but the schema lists 9 parameters, many of which (city, feed, json, query, etc.) have no connection to robots.txt. This implies the tool actually performs multiple unrelated checks, making the stated purpose incomplete and misleading. An agent cannot accurately infer the tool's full scope from this description.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus its 28 siblings or when not to use it. The description does not mention that the tool can handle multiple inspection tasks based on which parameter is provided, nor does it clarify when to pick 'inspect-robots' over 'web-fetch' or 'fetch-status'.

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