check_indexing_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: a hard 10-URL cap, that non-problem URLs are suppressed from results, and the full category taxonomy returned. It does not say what happens if more than 10 URLs are supplied (error vs truncation), nor any auth or rate-limit 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?

Two tight sentences plus a category enumeration, front-loaded with the tool's behavior before the alternative. Every element (cap, filter, categories, alternative) 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and the description still summarizes the response shape. The gaps are the undocumented 'site' parameter and undefined behavior when the URL list exceeds the stated cap, which matter for a two-parameter tool with no annotations.

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%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It adds the 10-URL ceiling for 'urls', but says nothing about 'site' — its expected format, whether it is a domain or a search-console property, or how it scopes the inspection — leaving a required parameter undocumented everywhere.

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 (inspect URLs for indexing issues), the scope cap (up to 10), and the filtering behavior (return only problem URLs plus a category summary). It also names the sibling it is not (batch_url_inspection), so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (you only want URLs with indexing problems) and names the alternative with its selecting condition (batch_url_inspection if you need all URLs regardless of status). No inference required.

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