Check robots.txt and sitemap

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and external-network profile is covered. The description contributes the useful detail of what is inspected (blocking rules, sitemap URL count), but says nothing about failure modes—unreachable site, missing robots.txt, or timeouts—which matter for a fetch-based check.

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?

One sentence, colon-delimited, front-loaded with the resources and then the aspects checked. No padding or restatement.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries return-value disclosure and does so by listing the four inspected aspects. Adequate for a single-parameter read tool; only the failure/edge-case behavior is left unstated.

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% and the single parameter already documents 'Any URL or domain on the site'. The description adds no further constraint or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (check) against specific resources (robots.txt and XML sitemap), and enumerates the aspects examined: presence, crawler blocking, sitemap location, URL count. That distinguishes it from check_links and audit_page by resource, though the boundary with audit_site (which could plausibly cover crawlability) is left implicit.

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 reach for this versus audit_site or audit_page, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer from the resource names alone that this is a crawlability/SEO pre-check.

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