Audit AI crawler readiness

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states what checks are performed and that no APIs are called, but does not disclose behavior such as idempotency, error handling, rate limits, required permissions, or the structure of the response. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotations.

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 two sentences, no redundant words, and front-loaded with the action and key checks. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values or result structure. It lists inputs and checks but omits how results are presented (e.g., pass/fail, detailed report). Incomplete for practical use.

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% with parameter descriptions. The tool's description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the action ('audit') and the resource ('AI crawler readiness') and lists specific checks (robots rules, homepage metadata, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on a single URL audit, though it does not explicitly compare to siblings.

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 this tool (for checking AI crawler access basics) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from alternatives like build_ai_visibility_report or check_llms_txt. The note 'No MaxAEO APIs are called' gives some context but is insufficient.

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