check_ai_access

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is a read, that it runs locally, that no account is needed, and that it classifies crawlers into live-question and training-data categories. This is meaningful context, though edge cases like missing robots.txt are not discussed.

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 focused sentences: it states the action, explains the meaningful distinction, and gives an operational note. Every sentence adds value and the main behavior is front-loaded.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains what the tool does and what kinds of results it produces. It could be more complete by describing output format or failure behavior, but the core agent decision and invocation need are well covered.

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 schema already covers the single 'url' parameter 100%, including an example. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond contextualizing it as a site whose robots.txt is read, 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?

The description states a specific verb-resource pair: 'Read a site's robots.txt' and 'say which AI crawlers may fetch it.' It clearly separates the tool from siblings by focusing on robots.txt + AI crawler classification, not identity files or page signals.

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 implies when to use the tool — when assessing AI crawler visibility — and even explains the practical consequence of blocking different crawler types. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state conditions for when not to use it.

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