request_removal

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (destructive, non-idempotent, open-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them by disclosing the structured-data eligibility restriction, which determines whether the call will succeed at all. It omits auth/quota context, keeping it from a 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?

Front-loaded with the action, immediately followed by the critical eligibility warning. The Args block mildly duplicates what the single-sentence body already implies, but overall there is little waste.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described. For a single-parameter mutation whose annotations already declare destructiveness, the description supplies the one missing piece that matters: the structured-data precondition.

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% for the single url parameter, so the description must carry the load. It states 'The full URL to request removal for,' which usefully clarifies that an absolute URL is expected rather than a path, but adds little else.

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: requesting Google remove a URL from the index via the Indexing API. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the related sibling request_indexing (which adds pages rather than removes them), so an agent must infer the inverse relationship.

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?

Provides a genuine when-not constraint: only works for pages with JobPosting or BroadcastEvent structured data. This is exactly the kind of eligibility gate an agent needs. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for other page types, so it is not a full 5.

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