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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it explains validation abort behavior on a single remaining instance, the check-then-recrawl sequence, the up-to-two-week duration with email progress, the re-call restriction, the 'changes nothing on your site' semantics, and the Cotlet API key requirement. This reconciles with destructiveHint=false and adds substantial context.

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?

Front-loads the action, then the conditions, behavior, and warnings. Slightly long at six sentences but every sentence carries decision-relevant information; minor redundancy between 'run without asking' and the read-only framing.

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 no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the full picture an agent needs: prerequisites, expected duration, side effects (none on site), progress notification, and re-invocation rules. 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by cross-referencing where 'reason' comes from (list_page_issues) and by reinforcing the property format semantics in prose.

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+resource: 'Start Google's validation of a fixed indexing or page experience issue.' It is unambiguous and clearly distinguishable from read siblings like list_page_issues and inspect_url. An agent knows exactly what action this triggers.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('after you fixed every instance') and when-not ('Do not call it again until validation has succeeded or failed'), plus it names the precondition that the issue comes from list_page_issues. Nothing is left to inference.

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