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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral context: the tool is bounded (cached), does not execute JS, does not bypass access controls, and explains cache reuse with fresh parameter. This goes beyond annotations, though some annotation info is redundant.

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 four sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the purpose and efficiently covers usage, limitations, and parameter guidance. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all key aspects: what it does, when to use, how to use, and behavioral constraints. It is fully sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the fresh parameter's cache behavior and emphasizing 'fresh=false' for reuse, which is not fully covered in schema. The url parameter's public constraint is reinforced.

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 clearly states the tool returns 'bounded llms.txt text' for public HTTP(S) resources, specifying the exact resource and action. It also differentiates from other web.site tools by stating it does not execute JavaScript or bypass access controls.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use (public HTTP(S) URLs), what it does not do (no JS, no access control bypass), and how to use (absolute URL, fresh parameter usage). It effectively distinguishes from siblings handling other file types like robots.txt.

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