Request Recrawl

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short: it does not say whether the recrawl is queued asynchronously, whether quota is consumed, whether the call fails when quota is exhausted, or what permissions user_id/host_id imply. 'Submit' signals a mutation, but nothing about reversibility or side effects is disclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is structurally clean. It is arguably too terse for a 3-parameter mutation tool, which slightly undercuts its effectiveness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but for an unannotated action tool the description should cover quota consumption and asynchronous processing. It omits both, and leaves the relationship to the recrawl-quota/tasks/status siblings entirely unstated.

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 description coverage is 100%: url, host_id (with format hint), and user_id are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds only the word 'URL' and no format, batching, or constraint detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (submit) and resource (URL for recrawl/reindexing) with the target service named (Yandex), so the action is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the related siblings get_recrawl_quota, get_recrawl_tasks, or get_recrawl_task_status, which an agent must distinguish between.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The existence of get_recrawl_quota strongly implies a quota constraint that the description never mentions, and it never says to check get_recrawl_task_status afterward for the result.

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