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

While annotations cover safety (read-only, non-destructive), the description adds critical operational behavior: 'Makes no outbound network requests and retains no payload.' This is vital context for security, confirming the audit is purely ephemeral and localized.

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 highly efficient, immediately front-loading its core constraint (no fetching) and concisely listing its function and external reference. Every sentence delivers necessary, high-value information.

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 that annotations cover the safety profile and there is no output schema to explain, the description is complete. It clearly defines the input scope (caller-supplied bundle) and the fundamental limitations (no network activity) necessary for the agent to invoke it 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?

Because the schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate. It provides high-level framing—that the parameters form a 'caller-supplied bundle'—but it does not add semantic meaning to any specific parameter like `llms_txt` or `agent_index` beyond what the schema types already indicate.

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 its function as an 'audit' of 'supplied crawler and agent discovery materials.' It immediately establishes a critical constraint: it operates 'without fetching URLs,' clearly differentiating it from network-dependent tools like `fetch` or `search` among the sibling list.

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?

It provides explicit usage boundaries by stating that it 'Checks a caller-supplied bundle only' and 'Makes no outbound network requests.' This strongly directs the agent toward this tool only when local, pre-gathered data is available, preventing unnecessary calls to fetching tools.

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