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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, but the description adds real context beyond them: each call consumes the site's daily recrawl quota, submission halts when the quota is exhausted, and results report per-URL outcomes plus remaining quota. That partial-failure semantics is exactly the kind of behavior an agent cannot infer from the schema or 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?

Three tight sentences with the action and its limit front-loaded, followed by the irreversible consequence and the return shape. Every sentence carries information and nothing is padded.

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 usefully sketches the return value as per-URL outcomes plus remaining quota, and it flags the quota-consuming, non-idempotent nature of the call. The only gap is the absence of guidance on prerequisite hostId acquisition or how this relates to the parallel sitemap/IndexNow submission tools.

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%, so both parameters (hostId format, urls array) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the 1-100 bound that maxItems/minItems already encode, adding no new meaning such as URL eligibility rules or whether duplicates count against quota. 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 names a specific verb and resource — asking Yandex to recrawl URLs — and adds a hard scope (up to 100). An agent can immediately tell this is a URL-level submission tool, though it never distinguishes itself from siblings like bing_submit_urls, indexnow_submit, or yandex_submit_sitemap.

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: the quota sentence signals this is a limited, deliberate action, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Nothing tells the agent to prefer yandex_submit_sitemap for bulk coverage or indexnow_submit for faster channels, which matters given several overlapping submission siblings.

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