Check robots.txt crawler posture

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), description adds 'One HTTP GET to /robots.txt. No auth, no rate limits applied. Deterministic, rule-based; no LLM.' No contradictions.

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?

Three paragraphs, each focused. First paragraph defines action and scope, second adds behavioral details, third provides usage guidance. No fluff, but could be slightly more concise.

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 single parameter, annotations, output schema (not shown but indicated), and sibling context, description covers all needed: behavior, use cases, limitations, and contrast.

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 3. Description adds value by listing example domains and known crawlers, and clarifying the fetch URL. Slightly above baseline.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Fetch and parse a domain's robots.txt; report per-crawler allow/disallow posture.' Distinct from siblings like check_sitemap and audit_page, as explicitly stated.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('figuring out which AI crawlers a site blocks vs allows'), suggests combining with check_sitemap, and distinguishes from audit_page.

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