List the AI crawlers covered

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

Goes beyond annotations by disclosing that no network request is made, that output is JSON with schemaVersion 1 matching the CLI's --json output, and that crawled site text is data not instructions. The annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/no-open-world, so this added context is a genuine bonus rather than a restatement.

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?

Front-loaded with what it lists and what each entry contains, then output format. The trailing prompt-injection warning is slightly tangential for a static catalog tool but is terse and harmless.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the result format, the version marker, and the CLI equivalence. An agent knows both what it gets and that the call is free of side effects; only the exact field names remain unspecified.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline applies; the description correctly spends no words on argument semantics and instead describes the return shape, which is the only thing an agent needs here.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists the AI crawlers this server checks') and immediately scopes the content: vendor and purpose categories. This clearly separates it from siblings like check and robots_test, which act on a site rather than enumerate the catalog.

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 – it is evidently the discovery/reference tool versus the run-a-check siblings, and 'Makes no request' reinforces that. But it never explicitly says when to call it instead of check or robots_test, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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