Yandex SQI

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

The description adds a useful behavioral warning about consuming SEO Intellect account limits, which goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose the task-based asynchronous behavior implied by parameters like task_id, wait_for_result, and timeout_ms, so the behavioral picture remains incomplete.

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 description is short and front-loaded, but the clause 'Upstream API tool: sqi' is redundant and does not earn its place. The cost warning adds value, but overall the phrasing includes an unnecessary self-reference.

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?

With no output schema and a non-trivial anyOf schema supporting both new-task and task-resume flows, the description should explain the async/polling behavior or expected result shape. It only gives a high-level fetch description, leaving an agent without enough context to anticipate the task_id and wait_for_result workflow from prose alone.

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 description adds no parameter-level meaning; all parameter semantics are carried by the schema's anyOf branches, which describe urls, timeout_ms, wait_for_result, task_id, and poll_interval_ms with full coverage. The schema already provides what an agent needs, so this is adequate but not enhanced.

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 identifies the resource ('Yandex site quality index') and the action ('Fetch'), with a useful extension to 'related public site signals.' It does not explicitly compare against siblings, but the named resource is distinctive enough among the listed SEO tools.

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 guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor are exclusions or prerequisites stated. The only usage-oriented detail is the account-limits warning, which is a cost caveat rather than selection guidance.

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