yandex_url_info

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 status lookup but does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, side effects, or whether site must match the URL; behavioral transparency is minimal.

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 definition is a single efficient sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the core information type, though the phrase 'Monitoring important pages' is somewhat ambiguous.

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 do not need explanation. However, with no annotations and no schema parameter descriptions, the definition should clarify the two required inputs and when to use this tool instead of siblings; it leaves those gaps for correct invocation.

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?

There are two required parameters with 0% schema description coverage. The description generically mentions 'a URL' but never explains the required 'site' parameter or the expected relationship between site and URL, so it adds only minimal meaning beyond the schema property names.

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 states a specific resource (URL), provider (Yandex), and information type (indexing + search status), so an agent can tell it is a URL-status lookup. It does not differentiate this tool from siblings such as yandex_site_summary or bing_url_info, keeping it below 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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description does not name alternatives like yandex_site_summary for site-level summaries or yandex_submit_url for indexing submissions, leaving usage entirely inferred.

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