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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden — and it delivers. It discloses the HTTP fetch target, redirect behavior, off-site redirect handling, timeout, robots.txt parsing, and that a missing robots.txt is treated as data rather than an error. It also previews the CheckResult shape and per-agent values, giving the agent a complete behavioral contract.

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 information-dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, use case, fetch mechanics, return shape, and edge-case behavior. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of the schema.

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?

With a single parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the result. It covers success values, the missing-robots edge case, timeout, redirects, and the exact agents checked — nothing essential is missing.

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 the single parameter thoroughly, including that it must be a public FQDN and that IPs, ports, paths, and protocol prefixes are rejected, giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds context about fetching <domain>/robots.txt, but does not significantly extend the parameter's meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline 3 for high schema coverage is therefore 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 and resource: 'Report a domain's AI-crawler policy.' It names the six AI agents and the robots.txt actions, making the tool's scope unmistakable and distinguishing it from the many other dossier_* siblings. The phrase 'Core dossier check' positions it within the suite rather than merely restating the tool name.

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 description explicitly states the use case: 'Use to answer "does this site let AI models train on / retrieve its content?" in a posture audit.' It does not name specific alternative tools or conditions when NOT to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately among the sibling dossier tools.

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