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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the WRITE-scoped token requirement, the ADMIN/OWNER role requirement, the cost (one crawl credit per page), the in-place health-score mutation, and that analysis is re-run. That is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations would otherwise provide.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the use case, then the selector heuristic, then the constraints. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers action, effect, preconditions and cost well. The remaining gap is that it does not describe what the call returns (e.g., a job/recrawl handle vs. synchronous result), which the absent output schema leaves to the description.

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 the schema already documents every parameter and baseline is 3. The description adds real value by explaining the selection strategy ('a summary row can cover far more pages than it lists') and the finding-vs-URL tradeoff, which the schema does not articulate.

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 states a specific verb and resource with precise scope: re-crawl only the pages affected by one finding, re-run that crawl's analysis, and update the health score in place. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like enqueue_crawl (full crawl) and get_crawl (read-only), so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

It gives clear context ('Use after fixing an issue to verify the fix without paying for a full re-crawl') and steers toward a selector over a URL list. It stops short of naming the alternative tool (e.g., enqueue_crawl) or explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it's strong but not exhaustive.

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