yandex_submit_url

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 usefully discloses that submission is queued (asynchronous, not immediate) and that a daily quota applies, but omits whether the site must be verified, whether the URL must belong to the site, what happens when the quota is exhausted, and whether failures are reported.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the key constraint second. No filler. Slightly terse given the missing behavioral and parameter detail, but nothing is wasted.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and zero schema descriptions, the description is too thin. An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but the description should cover verification requirements, quota behavior, and parameter expectations to make the tool safely callable.

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 0%, so neither 'site' nor 'url' is documented anywhere. The description does not explain the expected format of 'site' (host vs. full URL), the required relationship between 'site' and 'url', or whether the URL must be on that site. The parameter names are suggestive but the description compensates for none of the coverage gap.

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 and resource: 'Queue a URL for Yandex recrawl.' This distinguishes it as a submission tool rather than a read tool. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like indexnow_submit_url, bing_submit_url, or gsc_inspect_url, leaving an agent to infer that this is the Yandex-specific channel.

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?

Implied usage is clear from 'Queue a URL for Yandex recrawl,' and the quota constraint is disclosed. But there is no guidance on when to prefer this over indexnow_submit_url or bing_submit_url, no prerequisites (e.g., site verification), and no when-not-to-use statement.

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