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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that reindexing is forced, that it may include re-embedding only when a provider is configured, and that it takes effect on the indexer's next tick. It stops short of noting side effects such as temporary search staleness or cost, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 compact sentence delivers the action, the conditional embedding caveat, both invocation modes, and the timing. No filler or redundant structured data.

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 two-parameter tool with complete schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers operation, scope, and timing. It does not describe return values or effects on current search availability, but these are not essential to invoking it correctly.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description mainly restates the document_id semantics; the added 're-chunk/re-embed' and 'next tick' context is operation-level rather than parameter-level. This meets the baseline but adds little parameter-specific value.

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 action (force re-chunk/re-embed) and a clear resource (tenant search index), and distinguishes the two invocation modes: one document via document_id or every document. This is enough to separate it from sibling docs tools like put or status.

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 tool's purpose is clear enough to know when to call it, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over alternatives such as host.docs.put or host.docs.status, and no stated exclusions. The usage is implied rather than stated.

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