submit_url

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false. The description adds a valuable behavioral detail: 'consumes daily quota', which is not in annotations. This helps the agent understand the side effect of limited quota. No contradictions.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the key side effect. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple mutation tool with complete schema coverage and annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It explains the core action and quota consumption. However, it does not hint at what the response contains (e.g., task ID) despite no output schema existing, leaving a minor gap.

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%—all three parameters (url, format, host_id) have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Per the rubric, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 specific action: 'Submit a URL for re-crawling / re-indexing by Yandex'. It uses a precise verb (submit) and resource (URL), and the intent is unambiguous. It differentiates from sibling tools, which are all get_* read operations, by being the only mutating submission tool.

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 description implies the usage context: when you want to trigger re-indexing of a URL. It clearly contrasts with the read-only sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it falls short of a 5 but is clear in purpose.

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