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

Annotations already declare write access and open-world behavior, but the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: tracker auto-creation, domain ownership requirement, the 1,800-URL cap with skipped-and-reported overflow behavior, and initial 'pending' status. This is rich disclosure beyond the annotations, with no contradictions.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and side effect, then constraints, then next-step guidance. Every sentence adds useful information with no redundancy.

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 and the description still explains key operational behavior: auto-creation, domain constraint, cap enforcement, overflow reporting, and pending state. Together with annotations, an agent has what it needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It implies that siteUrl identifies the property and that urls must belong to that property's domain, and explains the 1,800-URL limit, but it does not define the exact expected format or source for siteUrl, leaving some ambiguity.

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 and resource: adds URLs to the GSC Wizard Indexing Tracker for a property, including tracker auto-creation. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_tracked_urls, remove_tracked_urls, and check_tracked_url_now.

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?

Provides clear context for using this tool to populate the indexing tracker, and explicitly routes the agent to check_tracked_url_now for immediate inspection or to the hourly cron for later checks. It does not, however, compare against other sibling URL-submission tools such as submit_indexnow_urls or bulk_inspect_urls, or state when not to add URLs.

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