Audit AI crawler readiness

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions what is checked and that no MaxAEO APIs are called, but fails to disclose whether the tool is read-only, required permissions, error handling, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 consists of two efficient sentences. The first enumerates the checks, and the second clarifies what is not done. There is no redundant information, and every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool has only 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a reasonable list of what is checked. However, it omits information about the return format, error behavior, or how results are presented. This is adequate but not fully complete.

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% for both parameters: url is described as 'Public website URL to audit.' and timeoutMs as 'Request timeout in milliseconds. Defaults to 10000.' The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool checks robots rules, AI crawler access basics, homepage metadata, canonical, noindex, and JSON-LD schema. It also explicitly differentiates by noting no MaxAEO APIs are called. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'build_ai_visibility_report' and 'check_llms_txt'.

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 use for auditing a website's AI crawler readiness but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any when-not-to-use conditions. The context from sibling names offers some implicit differentiation but lacks direct comparison.

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