Check llms.txt

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It lists what is validated and states no API calls, but does not disclose error behavior, side effects, or what happens if the file is missing. Insufficient for a validation tool.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the main action. Efficient, though splitting into multiple sentences could improve readability without adding length.

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?

Despite moderate complexity (4 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description lacks details on output format, error handling, and prerequisites. It mentions what it validates but not what the agent should expect in return.

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%, so all 4 parameters already have descriptions. The description adds high-level context ('Validate /llms.txt, linked URLs...') but does not enhance meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline.

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?

Description clearly states the tool validates /llms.txt, linked URLs, robots alignment, sitemap alignment, and returns a CTA. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying focus on llms.txt, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools 'audit_ai_crawler_readiness' and 'build_ai_visibility_report'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only additional note is a negative constraint ('No MaxAEO APIs are called'), which does not help the agent decide when to invoke it.

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