Site indexing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only' while adding valuable behavioral details: default report, grouping by HTTP status classes, and return content for each report. No contradictions.

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 compact, front-loaded with a summary, and uses a bulleted list for the three report types. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing exactly what each report returns (time series, example URLs, in-search URLs with titles) and the use case for each. It also notes the default report, making it complete for a 6-parameter read-only 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds cross-parameter meaning: it explains the report enum values, the default, that dateFrom/dateTo apply only to history, and that limit/offset apply to sample reports. This goes beyond the schema.

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 returns reports about how Yandex crawls and indexes the host, and enumerates three distinct report types with specific outputs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_diagnostics and list_sitemaps.

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 explicit guidance on when to use each report, e.g., history is for spotting spikes of crawler errors. However, it does not mention alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use this tool, so it lacks exclusions.

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