gsc_indexing_issues

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation, but doesn't disclose rate limits, how results are returned, or what counts as 'indexing problems'. Missing behavioral context beyond basic purpose.

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?

Concise and front-loaded: first sentence states purpose. Second part describes parameters efficiently. No wasted words. Only minor issue: parameter descriptions could be more detailed but within acceptable bounds.

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 2 params, no annotations, but has output schema (so return format explained there). Purpose is clear. However, lacks usage context, prerequisites, and behavioral traits. Adequate but could be more complete with guidelines.

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 0%, but description adds meaning for both parameters: site_url explains format (with example), pages clarifies it's a list of URLs. Schema gives types only, so description adds value. Baseline 3 with slight improvement due to examples but still minimal.

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 it uses the URL Inspection API to check for indexing problems on pages, with a specific verb 'Check' and resource 'indexing problems'. It distinguishes from siblings like gsc_inspect_url (which likely inspects a single URL in detail) by checking multiple pages for issues.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Sibling tools exist (e.g., gsc_inspect_url, gsc_audit), but description doesn't clarify when to choose this one. No mention of prerequisites or limitations.

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