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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it inspects both robots.txt and firewall/CDN layers, and explains the consequence of a block ('cost citations'), which tells the agent how to interpret results.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core action and mechanism; the crawler enumeration is informative rather than filler, and the impact clause lands last for emphasis.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description has to hint at return semantics – it does so by stating that it flags blocked AI search bots. For a single-parameter read tool with annotations covering side effects, this is nearly complete, though the precise result shape remains unspecified.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the required url and its format. The description adds nothing about the parameter itself, which is the correct baseline given the schema does the work.

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?

Specific verb ('Check') plus resource ('which AI crawlers ... a site's robots.txt and firewall/CDN let in'), with an explicit enumeration of the crawlers inspected (OAI-SearchBot, GPTBot, ClaudeBot, etc.). This clearly separates it from siblings like validate_llms_txt (a file validator) and audit_ai_visibility (a broader audit).

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?

Usage is implied by the description – you call it to see whether AI crawlers can reach a site – but there is no explicit when/when-not framing or pointer to alternatives such as validate_llms_txt. The agent can infer intent but is given no routing guidance.

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