gsc_start_indexing_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the asynchronous return immediately, the response shape, the concurrency limitation (second job refused), and the underlying browser-tab mechanism. These are significant behavioral traits beyond the schema.

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 three compact sentences, each adding distinct value: what it does, what to do after, and a key limitation. It is front-loaded and free of redundant wording.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: return behavior, follow-up actions, and concurrency policy. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., browser setup) or error scenarios, but given the simplicity, it is quite complete.

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?

The schema only names the 'urls' parameter as an array of strings, and the description adds only 'any number' — a minor clarification. It does not explain URL format, length limits, or any constraints, leaving the parameter semantics largely underspecified.

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's action (queue a background submission run) and the resource (URLs). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gsc_request_indexing (single submission) and gsc_job_status (polling) by emphasizing the background, batch nature.

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 mentions related tools for tracking and stopping (gsc_job_status, gsc_stop_job), and notes the one-at-a-time concurrency constraint. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like gsc_request_indexing, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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