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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the returned content — totals plus problem counts bucketed by the four severity levels — which annotations cannot convey, and with no output schema that disclosure matters. It stops short of mentioning freshness, rate limits, or what happens for an unverified host.

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 dense sentence with zero filler, front-loading the resource and the returned data before the parenthetical detail. The severity list makes the sentence long but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 single-parameter, read-only retrieval tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description suffices: it tells the agent what it gets back and in what breakdown. Only minor gaps remain (host verification requirements, empty-state behavior).

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% and the single hostId parameter is documented in-schema, including the exact format ('https:example.com:443') and the source tool that produces it. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, 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?

The description names the resource (Yandex site totals and currently reported site problems) and enumerates the specific data returned: pages in search, excluded pages, SQI, and problem severities. It is clearly distinct from siblings like yandex_search_queries or yandex_list_sites, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them and uses no direct verb.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the health/overview call for a Yandex site, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives such as yandex_list_sites for discovery.

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