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

Beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, the description discloses what the analysis actually inspects, that only the given page plus robots.txt and sitemap are fetched, the shape of the return (scores, crawler access table, prioritized fixes in English), and two explicit coverage limits. These are behavioral facts the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the trigger condition comes first, then the checks, then the exclusions. The long enumeration of checks is justified because it defines scope, though it could be tightened slightly without loss.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is optional, yet the description still sketches the output. Combined with the declared scope, limits, and sibling routing, nothing is missing for an agent to call this 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% and the single url parameter is already documented with format examples and the 'only this page is analyzed' scope note, so the description adds no new parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 applies when 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?

The description opens with a specific condition and resource: checking whether a public website can be crawled, read and cited by named AI assistants and AI search engines. It enumerates the concrete checks (robots.txt per AI crawler, Content-Signal, noindex/nosnippet, JS readability, FAQ, Organization schema/sameAs, sitemap, llms.txt), so an agent can distinguish it from audit_website at a glance.

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 states the trigger explicitly (the user asks if AI tools can read/cite the site, or why AI tools don't show the company) and names the alternative for the adjacent case: general SEO or conversion audits belong to audit_website. It also declares two negative boundaries — no brand-mention measurement and no CDN/firewall bot-block testing — so an agent knows when to escalate elsewhere.

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