Indexing API status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, openWorld=true, so 'nothing is submitted' mostly restates them. However, the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it reveals the notification-type vocabulary (URL_UPDATED / URL_DELETED) and, importantly, that most URLs were never notified and this is reported as such – preventing an agent from misreading an empty response as an error.

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 with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. Slightly terse given there is no output schema, but every clause 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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the relevant scope: what is returned (notification records), the notification types, and the common empty case. It lacks detail on the returned record shape because no output schema exists, but it is sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with a single 'url' parameter that the schema already documents as 'Full URL to look up'. The description adds no format, canonicalization, or property-vs-URL semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource: retrieves the latest Indexing API notifications (URL_UPDATED / URL_DELETED) Google holds for a URL. This is clearer than a generic status check, but it never distinguishes itself from the closely related gsc_inspect_url sibling, leaving the agent to infer which indexing-status tool to pick.

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 implies usage ('Latest ... notifications ... for a URL') and gives a useful empty-result expectation, but never states when to use this versus gsc_inspect_url or other URL-level siblings, nor any prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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