Check AI crawler access & indexability

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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already covering safety, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it enumerates the exact bots checked, the handling of blanket disallow, and the sources for noindex/nofollow (header and meta tag). This goes beyond the annotations and does not contradict them.

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 that front-load the primary purpose and follow with critical details. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no unnecessary verbosity.

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's complexity (checking multiple bots, headers, meta tags) and no output schema, the description covers the full scope of checks. It lacks an explicit statement about the report format or error behavior, but the 'Report' framing plus the listed checks gives sufficient context for an agent.

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?

The schema already provides 100% description coverage for the single 'url' parameter, including that robots.txt/llms.txt are checked at the origin. The tool description confirms this behavior but adds no new parameter-level semantics, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('effective robots.txt allow/block status for GPTBot, ClaudeBot, Google-Extended, PerplexityBot, CCBot, and the * default') and additional checks (llms.txt, noindex/nofollow via X-Robots-Tag and meta robots). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling 'check_robots' by focusing on AI crawlers and indexability signals.

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 by noting 'critical failures invisible to a plain robots.txt check', which differentiates it from a generic robots check. However, it does not explicitly state 'use this instead of check_robots' or list exclusions, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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