Check discovery files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two pieces of context beyond that: the scope limitation that discovery files do not expose client-rendered content, and the security-relevant warning that returned file content is untrusted data. These are genuine additions, though it says nothing about rate limits or failure modes.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: scope first, then the limitation, then the untrusted-data warning. Fully front-loaded with no waste.

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 read-only validator with a fully documented schema, the description covers scope, the key scope limitation, and the untrusted-content caveat. With no output schema, it could say a bit more about what 'validate structure' reports (findings vs. raw content), which is the only real gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so url, timeoutMs and userAgent are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., how the crawler profile affects validation, or the timeout default), so the baseline 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 names a specific verb (validate) and specific resources (robots.txt, sitemap.xml, llms.txt) scoped to a public site, so the agent knows exactly what the tool inspects. It implicitly carves itself away from check_crawler_readability via the 'do not make client-rendered page content readable' caveat, but never names the sibling tools 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 when-to-use statement or named alternative. The clause about these files not making client-rendered content readable implies the case where this tool is insufficient (and points toward check_crawler_readability), which is useful implied guidance, but the agent must infer it.

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