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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that verification is asynchronous, occurs on the collector rather than at the edge, and that nothing is fetched or published before the key matches. It also states rate limits (100 URLs per request, 200 per host per UTC day), no account/payment requirement, and the meaning of the 202 response. These are useful operational details not present in the schema or annotations.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose, but it is longer than necessary and repeats the key-file verification idea multiple times ('nothing of yours is read before...' and 'nothing is published... before the key matches'). Several sentences duplicate the IndexNow key-file concept, reducing conciseness without adding new 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?

For a non-readonly submission tool with no output schema, the description covers ownership verification, async processing, expected HTTP status, rate limits, resubmission behavior, and an important exception for public GitHub repositories. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly without needing additional documentation.

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 already 100%, and the parameter descriptions in the schema already explain the key file path, host, URL list format, and keyLocation same-host constraint. The tool description reinforces the same information rather than adding new per-parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Queue bundle root URLs served by a host you own.' It clearly distinguishes this submission action from sibling read/search tools like search_bundles and get_bundle, and the ownership scope is stated immediately.

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?

It gives explicit prerequisites (key file must match), the response code to expect (202), resubmission semantics ('Re-sending a URL is how you say the bundle changed'), and an exclusion ('Bundles in public GitHub repositories need no ping'). An agent knows exactly when this tool is appropriate and when it is unnecessary.

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