request_recrawl

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the operation is a write ('write'), supports dryRun, and only resubmits sitemaps for unindexed URLs. However, it omits permissions, rate limits, reversibility, and side effects beyond sitemap resubmission, which matters for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence and gets the core action front-loaded, but the phrasing 'the supported bulk recrawl nudge (write; supports dryRun)' is awkward and creates a confusing comma splice. It is compact but not well structured, reducing clarity.

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 7-parameter write tool with no annotations and a rich sibling set, the description is too thin. It lacks usage context, prerequisites, side-effect details, and alternative routes, especially relative to inspect_url and submit_sitemap. The output schema and parameter coverage help, but the description does not fully compensate for the missing operational context.

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%, so the baseline is 3 even without parameter details in the description. The description adds minimal extra semantics by clarifying the 'covering sitemap' concept and dryRun, but it does not meaningfully elaborate on the seven parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb and resource: it inspects URLs' Google index status and resubmits the covering sitemap for unindexed URLs. It clearly conveys a bulk recrawl nudge that combines inspection and submission, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspect_url or submit_sitemap, though it does not name those alternatives explicitly.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as inspect_url, submit_sitemap, or index_coverage. The description implies usage for bulk re-indexing requests, but it never states conditions, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the selection decision to the agent.

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