robots_txt_test

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 behavioral context by stating it returns the deciding rule and line and follows Google's matching rules, though it does not explain live-fetch behavior or error cases.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core question and followed by the key return information. There is no unnecessary wording and the structure is immediately scannable.

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 query tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, matching standard, and what the result contains (the deciding rule and line). It leaves some gaps around live versus stored checks and the show_content flag, but those are largely covered by the input schema.

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 75%, with clear descriptions for url, check_id, and user_agent, so the schema carries most parameter meaning. The description adds only the notion of a crawler and Google's matching rules, and does not clarify show_content or stored-version testing beyond what the schema already provides.

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 question ('Is this URL allowed for this crawler?') and the resource being tested (URL against a crawler's rules). It also clarifies the matching standard ('Google's matching rules'), though it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like robots_txt_check or robots_txt_check_property.

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: test a single URL against a crawler's robots.txt rules using Google's matching semantics. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus robots_txt_check, robots_txt_check_property, or robots_txt_history, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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