AI crawler access

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing that it 'Reads the site's robots.txt' and reports per-crawler statuses, while also stating the limitation that it only reflects robots.txt and not CDN/firewall blocking. This gives the agent a clear picture of what the tool does and cannot do, though details like response format or rate limits are omitted.

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?

The description is three sentences long and front-loaded with the core function, followed by usage guidance and a limitation. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no redundancy or filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and a key limitation. While it does not explicitly detail the return format, the phrase 'reports, per crawler, whether it is fully allowed, partially blocked or blocked entirely' gives the agent enough context. A small gap is the lack of mention of any network or rate-limit behaviors, but this is minor for a read-only check.

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?

The input schema already provides a full description for the single 'url' parameter ('The site to analyse, e.g. example.com or https://example.com'), giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level guidance beyond what the schema offers, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as per the calibration rules.

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 uses a specific verb ('Checks') and resource ('whether AI crawlers are allowed to read a site'), enumerates the exact crawlers covered, and clearly differentiates itself from sibling tools like offpage_gaps, shopping, and entity_check by focusing on robots.txt-based AI visibility. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 explicitly states when to use it ('when someone asks why AI never mentions their site, or before any other AI-visibility work') and provides a contextual exclusion ('cannot detect blocking done at the CDN or firewall layer'). It does not name alternative tools, but the 'before any other AI-visibility work' phrasing implies this is a prerequisite rather than a competing option, which is sufficient guidance.

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