Request Indexing

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

Annotations already convey read/write, idempotency, and destructive hints. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: Google's API restriction, the owner-level permission requirement, and the fact that submission is a request rather than a guaranteed immediate index. This is valuable transparency for an agent deciding whether the call will succeed.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed immediately by the critical eligibility restriction. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description is largely complete for this tool's complexity: it covers purpose, eligibility, auth ownership requirement, and the non-general nature of the API. The output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. A minor gap is the lack of an explicit pointer to sitemaps.submit for general pages, but this does not prevent 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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters and already provides rich descriptions for both 'url' and 'site_url', including format examples and permission failure modes. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Requests indexing through Google's Indexing API'), the resource ('a URL within an owner-level Search Console property'), and the critical scope restriction (only JobPosting or livestream BroadcastEvent pages). This distinguishes it from siblings like indexing.list_pages, urls.inspect, and sitemaps.submit.

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 provides an explicit when-not-to-use: 'It is not available for general webpage submission.' It also gives the eligibility criteria for valid submissions. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for general webpage submission, such as sitemaps.submit, which would make the guidance fully complete.

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