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

The description goes beyond the annotations by stating determinism, no network access (implying content must be pasted) and per-call time/result limits, which is real added value. But the '64 KB JSON input' limit contradicts the schema's own maxLength of 2 MB for html and 512 KB for llms_txt, so the stated boundary is untrustworthy.

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 definition restates the same content in Spanish and then again in the schema description, and one whole sentence (the 'Cuándo' clause) is off-topic and misleading. Front-loading is decent, but the redundancy and the misfit sentence dilute the useful parts.

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 read-only scorer with an output schema, the description covers inputs, behavioral limits and a sibling exclusion. It is incomplete because the usage guidance is wrong for this tool and the input-size limit conflicts with the schema, leaving the agent with inconsistent constraints.

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% and every property already documents its type and whether it is optional, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the semantic grouping of the three inputs (crawler access vs llms.txt validity vs metadata), which is marginal over the schema.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb (scoring) and resource (AI-agent readiness of a site) and enumerates the evidence it uses: robots.txt, llms.txt, HTML, crawler access, JSON-LD. This is enough to separate it from llms-txt-lint, but the later 'Cuándo: hay que leer, convertir o revisar una descripción de agente, una lista de herramientas, un documento OpenAPI o un recibo' sentence describes a completely different kind of task and muddies what the tool actually does.

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 'No para: llms-txt-lint' exclusion is genuinely useful routing. However, the positive 'when to use' clause talks about reading/converting agent descriptions, tool lists, OpenAPI documents or receipts — text that appears copy-pasted from another tool and directly conflicts with the stated purpose, so an agent following it would call this tool for the wrong inputs.

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