AI crawler access check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, lowering the bar. The description adds that it performs live requests with each bot's User-Agent, which is a behavioral trait not fully covered by annotations, and notes detection of UA-based blocks. This adds valuable context beyond the structured fields.

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 a dense two-sentence paragraph listing many crawlers and explaining consequences. While it is front-loaded with the main action, it is not concise and could be trimmed without losing key information. It is informative but not optimized for quick scanning.

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 there is no output schema, the description does not explain what the result looks like, but it clearly explains the method and the significance of blocked bots. Annotations cover safety, and the tool's purpose is well understood. It is fairly complete for an 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters (url and liveFetch) are already documented in the schema. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, except noting the URL should be representative. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles the details.

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 checks whether AI and search crawlers can reach a page, and details the method (robots.txt rules and live UA requests). It is specific about the resource and lists many crawlers, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling robots_check tool, which likely performs a similar check.

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 implies the tool is for AI crawler access and mentions consequences of being blocked, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like robots_check or ai_citation_check. There is no exclusion or comparison with siblings, leaving usage to inference.

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