webmaster_get_recrawl_quota

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that the read returns a quota and remaining submissions count, with no auth requirements, reset timing, or rate-limit context beyond what annotations and the output schema provide.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the key resource (quota) is front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though the terseness comes at the cost of the missing guidance noted elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and this is a simple read-only tool with one parameter. The description adequately frames what is fetched; only the host_id semantics and pre-call context are left uncovered.

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 single parameter host_id is documented only as a bare string. The description never explains what host_id refers to or its format, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap, though the small parameter count limits the severity.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('daily quota and remaining submissions'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like webmaster_list_recrawl_queue or webmaster_get_recrawl_task. The resource is concrete enough that an agent can tell what it retrieves, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling it is not.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as webmaster_list_recrawl_queue or webmaster_prepare_recrawl, and no stated prerequisites. The agent must infer from the name that this is the pre-flight check before submitting a recrawl.

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