robots_txt_check_property

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful operational scope: hosts are selected by Search traffic and Domain properties expand to all subdomains. It does not explain rate limits, permissions, result format, or the behavior implied by a 'check' tool not being marked read-only.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the parenthetical adds useful scope detail. The description is appropriately sized for this tool.

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?

The description is adequate for a property-level diagnostic, but with no output schema it should explain what the check returns (per-host statuses, errors, or summaries) and how days and max_hosts constrain coverage. Those omissions leave gaps in result shape and practical limits.

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?

With 67% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning to the site/property parameter by noting Domain-property subdomain coverage, but it does not explain days (how the traffic lookback is used) or max_hosts (the cap on hosts checked), and max_hosts has no schema description either.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Check robots.txt') and clearly states the scope: every host with Search traffic in the property, including subdomains of a Domain property. It is distinguishable from a single-host check, though it does not explicitly name the sibling robots_txt_check.

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 property-wide use case is implied clearly by 'every host that had Search traffic in the property,' but there is no explicit when-not guidance or routing to robots_txt_check for a single host/site. An agent can infer when to use it, but alternatives are not addressed.

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