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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint:false. The description adds useful context beyond this: the crawl limit ('up to 20'), the tool's scope ('basic' issues), and notably that 'No AI model or paid API is used', which sets expectations about cost and method. No contradiction with annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that starts with the action verb and includes all necessary high-level information. No wasted words, and the structure front-loads the core purpose.

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 has no output schema, the description, while noting the output type ('report basic SEO and AI-search readiness issues'), could be more explicit about the format or nature of the report. However, it adequately covers scope, limitations, and the fact that it's a read-only audit, which is sufficient for a tool of this simplicity.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters (url and max_pages) clearly described in the schema. The description adds no new parameter-specific meaning, merely restating the limit ('up to 20') that is already in the schema. Hence baseline 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 uses a specific verb 'Crawl' with a clear resource ('same-site pages') and outcome ('report basic SEO and AI-search readiness issues'). It clearly differentiates from the sibling tool check_search_files, which is about searching files, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 provides clear context for use: auditing up to 20 same-site pages for SEO and AI-search readiness, with a note that no paid API is used. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (like check_search_files) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations already establish the tool is read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful context by stating that no AI model or paid API is used, and clarifies the scope ('availability and basic validity'), providing value beyond the annotations without contradicting 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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resources. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simplicity (one parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description adequately covers the core behavior. It mentions what is checked (availability and basic validity), though it does not detail return values or edge cases, which is acceptable for this low complexity.

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 a clear description for the only parameter ('Website URL, for example https://example.com'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not need to add more, and it doesn't, so it meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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 ('Check') and names concrete resources ('robots.txt, sitemap.xml and llms.txt') with a clear scope ('availability and basic validity'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'audit_website' by focusing on search discovery files.

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 a use case: checking the availability and validity of specific search discovery files. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling 'audit_website', nor does it provide any exclusions or alternatives.

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