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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so 'Read-only' simply repeats structured data. The only non-redundant detail is 'free', with no information on how a missing or malformed llms.txt is handled, whether the fetch follows redirects, or how errors surface.

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 sentence with the target resource front-loaded after the verb, and zero filler. Nothing to trim and nothing buried.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description is the only place to learn what a check returns (found/not found, status, content). It is silent on that, leaving an agent unsure how to interpret results, and it never mentions the aggregate tool it complements.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage ('Domain or https URL'), the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no further meaning, such as whether bare domains are normalized or whether path components in a URL are ignored — though baseline 3 applies when coverage is complete.

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 a specific verb and resource: check the llms.txt file at /llms.txt on a public website, framed as 'one agent-readiness item'. That narrows it against the aggregate sibling bursia_agent_readiness without ever naming it, so the distinction is inferred rather than stated.

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 phrase 'one agent-readiness item' implies this is a single check drawn from a larger readiness audit, which hints at usage context. It never states when to call this versus bursia_agent_readiness or the other per-artifact checks (robots, sitemap, agents.json), and gives no preconditions or exclusions.

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