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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses idempotent-like return behavior ('or the already-active run if one is queued or running'), auth requirements, and credit consumption. It does not cover rate limits or error behavior, but the core behavioral traits are well covered.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then return behavior, then requirements. No wasted words; every sentence adds distinct value.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description does a good job covering purpose, return value, auth, and credit cost. It could add a note on idempotency or error cases, but it is largely complete for a one-param mutation tool.

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 single parameter siteId has a schema description ('Path parameter siteId.'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds only the phrase 'for a site', which barely enriches meaning. Per baseline for high coverage, a 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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'Enqueue a new recursive crawl run for a site.' It also clarifies the return behavior. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like recrawl_pages or cancel_crawl, so an agent must infer the full-site recursive scope from context.

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 gives prerequisites (WRITE-scoped token, EDITOR/ADMIN/OWNER role, crawl credits) but does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as recrawl_pages or list_crawls. Usage context is implied by 'new recursive crawl run' but no explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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