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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing exactly which external resources are fetched (robots.txt and /llms.txt), though it omits fetch failure/timeout behavior and whether results are cached.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler: the inspection targets are stated before the rationale, and nothing is repeated from the schema or title.

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 no output schema, the description should hint at what the diagnostic returns (e.g. per-crawler allow/deny plus llms.txt presence), but it only implies a report via the response_format enum. For a simple read-only tool this is adequate but leaves the result shape 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so url (with protocol) and the markdown/json response_format are fully documented in the schema. The description mentions no parameter and adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb ('Inspects') and two specific resources (robots.txt AI-crawler rules and /llms.txt), which concretely defines the jargon name 'GEO readiness'. The AI-crawler focus cleanly separates it from the sibling DOM/LCP audits.

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 only implied by the audit-family naming; the description never states when to reach for this audit versus audit_dom_bloat or audit_lcp_trace, nor any prerequisites (e.g. the site must be publicly reachable). No exclusions or alternatives are given.

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