check_ai_crawlers

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

Description aligns with readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, adding details about specific crawlers checked and the methods (robots.txt, meta tags). It also explicitly says 'Read-only' and returns JSON, providing behavior beyond annotations.

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?

Extremely concise at two sentences, front-loaded with key action and covered crawlers. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

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 (2 params, no output schema), the description fully covers purpose, behavior, and output format. It mentions specific crawlers and that it's read-only, providing sufficient context for correct usage.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for domain and industry parameters. The description adds little extra beyond stating it works on any public domain, so baseline of 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?

Description clearly states it does a live check of AI crawler access via robots.txt and meta tags, covering multiple specific crawlers and returning per-crawler verdict. This distinguishes it from siblings like check_sitemap.

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?

States it works on any public domain with no setup, implying ease of use. It doesn't explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough for the agent to decide.

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