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

Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructive hints. The description adds async behavior, in-place update, auth requirements, and specific error codes (401/403/404), which are not in annotations. This adds useful behavioral context beyond the structured hints.

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?

The description is slightly longer but well-structured: action first, then auth/errors, then related tools. Every sentence carries information; no fluff. It's appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 2 params, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description covers auth, errors, async behavior, and related tools. It's nearly complete; minor gaps like failure behavior during indexing are not critical. The description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for both parameters: urlId should come from ethora-sources-site-list-v2, and appId is required in B2B mode but ignored in app-token mode. This clarifies conditions beyond the schema descriptions, justifying a 4.

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 clearly states the tool re-crawls and re-embeds a previously crawled URL by its urlId, refreshing RAG content. It distinguishes itself from the non-v2 variant and the -wait sibling, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 provides context on auth modes (app-token vs B2B) and names related tools for getting the urlId and waiting for completion. It implies when to use this tool but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives beyond the variant mention. Clear enough for most agents.

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