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 discloses key operational traits: it fetches without JavaScript or cookies, is rate-limited to 6 checks per minute, each check takes a few seconds, and can return either a scored report or a readiness prompt. It also promises evidence and fix advice per check, making outputs and side effects predictable.

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 dense but every clause earns its place: it covers purpose, how the site is fetched, what is evalued, what the output includes, the alternative format, and operational limits. It front-loads the core action and avoids filler.

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 and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: input restrictions, the full set of checks, scoring scale, evidence/fix output, the prompt alternative, and rate limits. An agent can correctly decide whether to call the tool and can plan for latency and throughput.

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%; both parameters already have meaningful descriptions in the input schema, including 'scheme optional, https assumed' and the json/prompt enum behavior. The description reinforces the prompt formatting mode but does not add new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 measurable outcome ('Score how bot-friendly a website is (0-100)') and then enumerates the exact checks performed, making it unmistakable from sibling catalog/service tools. It names concrete resources such as robots.txt, llms.txt, sitemap, and OpenAPI, so an agent knows precisely what is evaluated.

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 clearly frames the tool as a bot-access audit and explains the format='prompt' conditional, which gives the agent context for choosing a mode. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use or an alternative tool, but the sibling tools are unrelated, so the omission is minor and the intended context is clear.

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