Inspect search and training policies

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the description's remaining job is interpretive context. It delivers that with 'Does not prove live vendor access', warning the agent that declared policy is not observed behavior, and clarifies the fetch is origin-level. It does not mention failure modes for missing or malformed robots.txt.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the action and scope come first and the caveat second. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter, read-only inspection tool with no output schema, the description conveys both what is fetched and how to read the result (per-purpose policy classes, not proof of live access). Only the missing-robots.txt case and URL format expectations are absent.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the load. 'At the supplied page path' usefully implies the URL is reduced to its origin before fetching robots.txt, but it omits format requirements (absolute URI with scheme) and whether path/query are ignored. Partial compensation only.

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 (fetch origin /robots.txt, report declared policies) and scopes the result to search, AI retrieval, and training separately. It is clearly distinguishable from inspect_sitemap and the audit_* siblings, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 only implied: an agent can infer you call this when you want a site's declared crawler/AI policies. There is no statement of when to prefer it over inspect_sitemap or audit_url, and no prerequisites (e.g. what happens if robots.txt is missing).

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