Audit llms.txt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which covers the safety profile well. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by noting llms.txt is 'a community proposal, not a ranking guarantee', which sets expectations about the output's significance. This is valuable framing an agent would otherwise not know.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence captures the entire audit flow; the second adds a single relevant caveat about llms.txt being a community proposal. No wasted words, though it could arguably be trimmed further.

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?

For a read-only audit tool with full schema coverage and strong annotations, the description is adequately complete. It covers what is checked (file existence, links, heading, canonical comparison) and sets proper expectations. No output schema exists, so the description could note what the result looks like, but the stated scope is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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%, so both parameters (site_url and canonical_urls) are already documented in the schema. The description adds purpose-level meaning for canonical_urls (comparing against it) but doesn't add format or behavioral details beyond the schema. 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 clearly states the verb (check/inspect/compare), the resource (root-level llms.txt Markdown file), and the specific scope (links, heading, and comparison with canonical/hub URLs). It is distinct from sibling tools which cover Bing rank/traffic stats, SEO scans, and AEO content audits — this one uniquely targets the llms.txt file.

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 usage for auditing an llms.txt file against canonical URLs, which gives clear context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name an alternative tool, though the distinct domain (llms.txt vs Bing/SEO metrics) makes the context reasonably clear.

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