check_indexing_issues

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains that domain properties cover subdomains and describes how to filter by page, which adds useful behavioral nuance. However, it does not disclose safety traits (e.g., read-only), potential side effects, or rate limits, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by a clearly formatted Args block. Every line adds value, and the examples are embedded without unnecessary prose. It is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (so return values are handled elsewhere) and the two parameters are thoroughly explained, the description is largely complete. It references list_properties for valid site_url values and covers the key usage nuance of domain properties. Minor gaps remain, such as not stating any limits on the number of URLs or how to interpret errors, but overall it is sufficient for a straightforward tool.

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 fully compensates. It provides detailed semantics for both parameters: site_url has exact format examples and explains domain vs. URL-property behavior, including how to scope to a subdomain; urls specifies 'List of URLs to check, one per line'. This is far beyond the bare schema.

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 the tool 'Check for specific indexing issues across multiple URLs' with a specific verb and resource, and the Args section further clarifies scope via site_url. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like batch_url_inspection or inspect_url_enhanced, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as batch_url_inspection or inspect_url_enhanced. The description provides detailed parameter usage (e.g., how to choose site_url for domain properties), but that is parameter-level guidance, not tool selection advice. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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