Check llms.txt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses that no MaxAEO APIs are called (a behavioral trait), but it does not mention read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or potential side effects. The term 'Validate' implies analysis, but transparency is moderate.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the key actions (validate, return) with no filler. Every word serves a purpose, making it concise and effective.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify return format or behavior, but it only mentions 'transparent MaxAEO CTA' vaguely. It omits details like output structure or prerequisites (e.g., robots.txt existence). This leaves gaps, though the parameters are partly self-explanatory.

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%; each parameter has a description. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond summarizing the parameters' purpose. Baseline is 3, and no extra value is provided, so score remains 3.

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 validates /llms.txt, linked URLs, robots alignment, sitemap alignment, and returns a MaxAEO CTA. The verb 'validate' and specific resources are explicit, and it distinguishes from siblings which focus on broader AI crawler readiness and visibility reports.

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 implicitly suggests use for llms.txt validation by naming the resource, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or provide when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. The statement 'No MaxAEO APIs are called' hints at safety but is not a full usage guideline.

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