seo_audit_robots_and_sitemap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and its BEHAVIORAL TRANSPARENCY section delivers: 'Safe, read-only network/file inspection. Fetches robots.txt and sitemap.xml without modifying them.' This clearly discloses the non-mutating safety profile. It falls short of a 5 only by omitting details like rate limits, auth requirements, or behavior when robots.txt/sitemap.xml are missing.

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 definition is organized into labeled sections (USAGE GUIDELINES, BEHAVIORAL TRANSPARENCY) with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Every sentence earns its place: the scope enumeration, the bot-specific context, the exclusion with alternatives, and the safety note are all non-redundant.

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 multi-faceted audit tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, exclusions, and safety quite thoroughly. It is missing only the expected return format and target URL format, which an output schema would normally clarify. The absence of failure-behavior notes is also a minor gap.

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 the single required 'target' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds mild context by implying target is the site whose robots.txt and sitemap.xml get fetched, but it never explicitly states the expected format (e.g., full URL vs. domain, protocol requirement). The schema does the heavy lifting here.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Inspects' and enumerates concrete objects: robots.txt allow/disallow rules per user-agent, sitemap index validity, contradictory directives, and HTTP security headers. This level of specificity fully differentiates it from siblings like seo_audit_sitemap_multipage and seo_crawl_and_extract without needing to open any schemas.

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 USAGE GUIDELINES section provides explicit positive context ('Use to inspect crawl configuration and indexation guardrails for Googlebot, GPTBot, ClaudeBot, and PerplexityBot') and an explicit negative exclusion with named alternatives ('Do NOT use for crawling page body content; use seo_audit_sitemap_multipage or seo_crawl_and_extract instead'). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternatives structure the rubric rewards.

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