audit_domain_ai_llms_readiness

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden: it does not say whether the tool performs live network fetches against the target domain, whether it is read-only, what rate limits or auth requirements exist (the proApiKey parameter hints at a quota model but this is unstated), or how partial failures are reported. It only names the checks performed.

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?

A single dense sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded and the three audit dimensions enumerated. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 five-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but workable: it conveys scope but not return shape, scoring criteria, or the difference between live lookups and offline mode. An agent could select the tool correctly but would be guessing about results and cost.

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 the schema already documents domain, html, llmsTxt, robotsTxt, and proApiKey. The description mentions the artifact types (robots.txt, llms.txt) but adds no meaning beyond the schema and does not explain the offline-testing mode that three optional parameters enable.

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 uses a specific verb ('Audit') plus resource ('any domain') and enumerates the three concrete checks: /llms.txt support, robots.txt AI-bot rules naming GPTBot/ClaudeBot/PerplexityBot, and Schema.org metadata. This clearly separates it from siblings like audit_domain_wcag_and_eaa and scan_domain_cyber_hygiene, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to choose this tool over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer from the sibling names that this is the AI-readiness variant rather than the accessibility or security audit.

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