webmaster_get_recrawl_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds an important non-obvious caveat not present in structured fields: 'DONE does not prove search indexing', which helps interpret the returned status correctly.

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 one compact sentence with the action and caveat front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably very terse, but every clause carries useful information.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, and the rich annotations cover the safety profile. However, the description provides no workflow context linking this tool to prepare/apply/queue siblings and no parameter guidance, so it is only minimally complete.

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 adds nothing about host_id or task_id. With two required parameters and no schema descriptions, the description fails to compensate, leaving the meaning and source of the IDs undocumented.

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 says 'Read IN_PROGRESS/DONE/FAILED', which with the tool name makes clear it retrieves the status of a recrawl task. It is a specific read operation, though it does not explicitly mention task IDs or distinguish itself from siblings like webmaster_list_recrawl_queue in the description itself.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not say whether this is for checking a task after webmaster_apply_recrawl, how it relates to webmaster_list_recrawl_queue, or when to prefer it over other recrawl tools.

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