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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the blocking behavior, the exact return shape (`{ done: true, durationMs, result }`), and specific error semantics including 401/403, 404, and 504/timeout. It also warns that the job may still complete server-side after a timeout, which is critical behavioral context. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 dense but highly structured: it front-loads the main action and variant relationship, then covers return value, auth, errors, and related tool in separate concise sentences. Every sentence contributes necessary information with no filler.

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 tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return value, auth requirements, error cases, timeout behavior, and how to get the required `urlId`. It provides all the information an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly without additional lookups.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by clarifying the auth role of `appId` across modes and by explaining the timeout failure behavior (504/timeout, job may still complete server-side), which goes beyond the schema's simple 'how long to wait' wording.

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: 'Re-crawl and re-embed a previously crawled URL and block until the server finishes.' It also explicitly differentiates this tool from its sibling `ethora-sources-site-reindex-v2` by calling it a 'single-call, long-timeout variant' with the same refresh effect, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 clearly positions this tool as the blocking/long-timeout alternative to `ethora-sources-site-reindex-v2`, making the when-to-use distinction explicit. It also provides auth-mode requirements ('app-token mode OR B2B mode with an explicit appId') and tells the agent where to obtain `urlId` via `ethora-sources-site-list-v2`.

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