check_llms_txt

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: caching behavior implied by force_refresh, evidence-strength caveats ('evidence of a dangling service, not proof it can be claimed', 'an unregistered name is claimable'), and the explicit 'not scored' scope plus a notAssessed section for unmeasured items.

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?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose before listing the sub-checks. Nearly every clause carries information, though the list of checks is long and could be tightened slightly.

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 an output schema present, return-value detail is unnecessary, and the description still covers scope, evidence interpretation, cache/refresh behavior, and a notAssessed out-of-scope section. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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%, with all three parameters (domain, format, force_refresh) documented including the enum and the force_refresh purpose. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific resource (a domain's /llms.txt and /llms-full.txt) and precisely enumerates the checks performed: link parsing/dedup, external-host CNAME sweep, and install-command registry/OSV verification. It clearly delineates a distinct capability, though it never explicitly differentiates itself from the adjacent sibling check_agent_discovery.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated - an agent can infer this inspects agent-discovery artifacts, and 'Detection only; not scored' hints at its boundary. But there is no explicit when-to-use condition, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to siblings such as check_agent_discovery or check_subdomain_takeover.

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