yandex_crawl_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only diagnostic but never confirms non-destructiveness, says nothing about required account/permission scope, rate limits, or whether results are cached — all relevant for an external API call.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the primary capability and appending the secondary output. Every clause carries information, though the parenthetical '(by severity)' is slightly awkward phrasing.

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 not be described, and the single-parameter surface is small. However, the format of 'site' and what 'diagnostics' actually enumerates remain unstated, leaving a workable but incomplete definition.

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?

The single required 'site' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not state whether it expects a full URL, a hostname, or a Yandex site ID. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it does not.

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?

Names a specific resource (Yandex site diagnostics) and a specific output (severity-based issues plus sample broken internal links), which distinguishes it from the sibling bing_crawl_issues by engine and from link-only tools like find_broken_external_links. The verb is implicit ('diagnostics') rather than an explicit action, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus bing_crawl_issues, audit_site, or internal_link_graph, and no prerequisites such as site verification or Yandex Webmaster access. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and sibling list.

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