check_ai_access

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it makes one live HTTP request per bot, and the cost grows with the bot set (default 15), which is exactly the kind of operational detail an agent needs before calling an open-world tool.

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, no filler. The core purpose and the bot list come first, followed by the read-only and one-request-per-bot caveats — everything is front-loaded and every clause carries information.

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 3-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description covers what an agent needs: the per-bot robots.txt verdict and the echoed HTTP status are described, so return values are not a mystery. It stops short of describing result shape per bot or error behavior for unreachable/blocked URLs, which keeps it from a 5.

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%, so the schema already documents url, bots and http, including the full known-bot list and the default. The description only echoes the http semantics ('live HTTP status when the page is fetched with each bot's user-agent string') without adding format or constraint detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Check whether AI crawlers ... may access a URL') and enumerates the specific bots plus the two outputs (robots.txt decision, live HTTP status). It is clear what the tool does, though it never names the closest sibling see_as_bot, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 by the description: use it when you need to know whether AI crawlers are allowed on a page. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of generate_robots_txt or see_as_bot as alternatives, and no prerequisites stated (e.g. URL must be public, which only appears in the schema).

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