get_recrawl_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is clear. The description adds the context that this tool is for status checking (read-only) and references the source of task IDs. However, it does not detail response behavior, possible statuses, or that results may be delayed. This is adequate but not rich.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words; it communicates the essential information immediately.

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?

This is a simple read-only status tool with full schema coverage and a readOnlyHint annotation. The description sufficiently conveys the main usage flow (submit_url → get_recrawl_task). It omits the optional format parameter details, but those are fully covered in the schema, so the description is complete enough for this complexity.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter definitions. The description does not add significant meaning beyond mentioning 'by id' and 'from submit_url', which are already in the schema. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's function: retrieving the status of a re-crawl task by ID, with the source specified as 'from submit_url'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_recrawl_quota and submit_url, providing a specific verb+resource+scope.

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?

The phrase 'from submit_url' strongly implies when to use this tool: after submitting a URL to obtain a task_id. It ties directly to the submit_url flow, giving clear contextual usage guidance, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.

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