webmaster_list_recrawl_queue

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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint). The description adds that results are asynchronous and returned one page at a time, which is useful, but says nothing about ordering, freshness, or what the page contains. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but thin.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the pagination hint is packed into the verb phrase. Nothing is wasted.

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 shape need not be explained. Still, for a host-scoped listing tool the description omits what qualifies a request for the queue, ordering, and how paging terminates, leaving meaningful gaps for correct invocation.

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% for three parameters. The phrase 'one page' implies limit/offset pagination, but the description never explains host_id (its required scoping key) nor how limit/offset behave, leaving the semantics of every parameter undocumented in both schema and description.

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 one page') and resource ('asynchronous recrawl requests'), so an agent knows this lists queued recrawl requests. It does not, however, name or contrast with any sibling such as webmaster_get_recrawl_task (single task) or webmaster_get_recrawl_quota, so differentiation is left to the agent.

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 prerequisites (e.g., a verified host_id), and no routing to alternatives like webmaster_prepare_recrawl for enqueueing or webmaster_get_recrawl_task for a single item. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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