indexnow_submit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it discloses that 200/202 only means the notification was received (never that crawling/indexing happened), that the key is transmitted but never echoed in output, and that strict SSRF validation and origin matching apply. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and quota behavior, which is what keeps it below 5.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the core action and engine list come first, then the input constraints, then the semantics of the success response and key handling. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 values need not be explained, and the response-semantics caveat is a nice touch. But for a 3-required-parameter, zero-schema-coverage, zero-annotation mutation tool, the description still leaves format expectations, idempotency, and quota/rate-limit behavior unaddressed.

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% and all three parameters are bare strings/array, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for `urls` (SSRF validation, exact HTTPS origin) and `key` (sent but not returned), but says nothing about the expected format of `site` or `key` (e.g. key-file token vs. URL), leaving format ambiguity unresolved.

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 (submit) and resource (URLs via the IndexNow protocol) and enumerates the receiving engines (Bing, Yandex, Seznam, Naver), which is meaningfully distinct from the Bing Webmaster submission siblings. However, it never names an alternative such as submit_url, submit_batch, or bing_url_submit, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

The description states validation preconditions (SSRF check, exact HTTPS origin match) but gives no when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and does not route the agent between this and the many other submission tools (submit_url, submit_sitemap, bing_urls_submit_batch). An agent cannot tell from this text when IndexNow is preferable to the Bing API path.

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