Refresh Pages index

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the crawl is background/parallel and that the function returns immediately, which is valuable. But it omits side effects (e.g., whether the old index is replaced), potential rate limits, and required permissions, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no waste. The structure is ideal for quick scanning.

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?

The high-level flow (start crawl, poll for progress) is covered, which helps for a simple trigger tool. However, the lack of parameter descriptions, failure mode information, and any auth note makes it incomplete for a tool with no output schema and no annotations. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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%, and the description does not mention or explain any of the three parameters (sourceId, maxPages, concurrency). The agent is left to infer what these parameters do from names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 states the action ('Starts a parallel background crawl') and the resource ('allowlisted rendered Pages links'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_pages_index and search_pages_index which are for reading/seaching the index. It also differentiates itself as a trigger operation rather than a query operation.

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?

It explicitly instructs to poll get_pages_index for progress and final statistics, providing a clear follow-up workflow. However, it doesn't mention when to avoid this tool or mention prerequisites such as authentication, so it falls short of full guidance.

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