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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses what is measured, that live requests are checked at the network edge, that operator documentation is assessed, and that correction/dispute channels are included. It does not explicitly state read-only status or error behavior, but the 'measures and publishes' framing strongly implies a read operation.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the metric list is scannable. The second sentence slightly repeats the correction-channel idea already mentioned in the list, but it adds the audience and the dispute-page detail, so it earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what data the profile returns and that correction channels are included. It could be more explicit about output format or unknown-agent handling, but the essential guidance for selecting and invoking the tool is present.

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 input schema already documents `agent` with examples like gptbot and claudebot at 100% coverage. The description only adds that the tool is about 'one AI crawler,' contributing no new parameter syntax or constraints, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'What this census measures and publishes about one AI crawler.' It then enumerates the exact metrics reported, clearly distinguishing this per-agent profile tool from sibling tools that focus on sites, stats, or submissions.

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 intended use is clear: retrieve published census data about one AI crawler, aimed at both the crawler operator and external researchers. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or exclusion conditions, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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