GEO: accesso dei crawler AI

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope context (which directives are inspected, and 'measured data, without judgments' indicating raw output rather than an evaluation), but does not disclose traits like fetch behavior, caching, or response shape.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core output followed by the supplementary signals. No filler, though the bot-name list and file list make it slightly dense.

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, one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting of explaining what data categories are returned, which is enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. Return formatting details are absent but minor given the clear enumeration of inspected sources.

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% and the single 'url' parameter is fully described in the schema as a site page whose path is evaluated. The description adds no further parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 for a fully documented one-param schema 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 names a specific resource (AI crawler access for a URL) and enumerates exactly what is returned: per-bot allow/block status, the robots.txt rule responsible, plus llms.txt, Cloudflare Content Signals, TDMRep, meta robots and X-Robots-Tag. It is clearly distinct from siblings like geo_page_metrics or geo_page_sections, though it never names an alternative to differentiate itself 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?

There is no explicit 'use this when...' statement or any named alternative, but the enumerated output (crawler permissions for a given page) makes the intended use strongly implied. An agent can infer the right context, but no exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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