webmaster_get_recrawl_task

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does add meaningful context: it states the possible statuses and warns that DONE does not prove search indexing. The verb 'Read' also signals a non-mutating operation. It omits details like permissions or polling behavior, but for a simple read tool the core behavioral caveat is valuable.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, and the caveat about DONE earns its place. It is slightly telegraphic—'Read IN_PROGRESS/DONE/FAILED' is not a full sentence—but there is no wasted wording.

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 low-complexity read tool with an output schema, the description covers the main action and an important interpretation trap. However, with no annotations, no parameter explanations, and many sibling recrawl tools, an agent still lacks guidance on how to obtain a task_id, when to poll, and how this differs from nearby tools.

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%, so the description needed to explain host_id and task_id, but it does not. It only implies that task_id refers to a recrawl task; host_id is not described at all, and there is no guidance on formats, sources, or how to obtain valid IDs. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 uses the verb 'Read' and names the resource through the statuses IN_PROGRESS/DONE/FAILED and the tool name 'recrawl_task'. It is clear that this tool retrieves the status of a recrawl task. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the task-level read action is a useful scope marker.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as webmaster_list_recrawl_queue, webmaster_get_recrawl_quota, or webmaster_apply_recrawl. The DONE caveat helps interpret results but does not help an agent select this tool correctly.

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