webmaster_start_pro_export

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

Adds real context beyond annotations: daily quota consumption, the YANDEX_WEBMASTER_WRITE_ENABLED prerequisite, and the two-step approval_id handshake. Annotations already cover the safety/idempotency profile (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description is consistent with them.

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?

Three dense clauses, front-loaded with the action and endpoint, then quota/auth cost, then the approval flow. Every sentence adds information without padding.

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 no explanation, and the description covers quota, auth flag, approval flow, and the follow-up status tool. The gap is the undocumented parameter semantics (e.g., date format), which leaves minor incompleteness.

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% across 7 params, so the description must carry the burden, and it only clarifies use_pro_tariff and approval_id. The required dates, host_id, plus paths and region_ids are left with no format or meaning guidance beyond their names.

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 ('Start') plus resource ('enhanced SERP-query export') and even cites the underlying endpoint. It clearly differentiates from siblings like webmaster_get_pro_export_status and webmaster_get_pro_limits.

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?

Explains the use_pro_tariff=true approval flow and explicitly routes the agent to poll webmaster_get_pro_export_status after starting. It warns that the call spends daily quota and requires an env flag, giving clear when-to-use context, though it does not spell out explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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