Submit URL for recrawl

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

The description goes beyond annotations by stating the specific side effect (consumes one unit of limited daily quota), and discloses return values (task_id and remaining quota). Annotations already indicated non-read-only, but the description adds context about quota limits and the returned tracking identifier.

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 sentences cover purpose, quota warning, URL requirements, and return value/tracking. Every sentence earns its place 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?

Since there is no output schema, the description correctly explains the return values (task_id and remaining quota). It also covers the quota limitation, URL constraints, and how to track progress, making it complete for a tool with only two parameters and straightforward behavior.

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% and both parameters (url and hostId) are already described in detail. The description only reiterates the URL constraint ('must belong to the host, full absolute URL') already present in the schema, adding no new semantic meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Ask Yandex to recrawl a specific page'), identifies the resource (a URL belonging to the host), and distinguishes itself from recrawl_status by framing this tool as a submit action and recrawl_status as the status tracker.

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?

Explicitly tells users to check quota with recrawl_status before calling, warns that it is NOT read-only and consumes quota, and directs tracking progress via recrawl_status. This provides clear when-to-use and alternative guidance.

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