get_indexing_status

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('inspect') and lists the data categories returned, but it does not disclose any prerequisites (e.g., need for site_url), error conditions, or whether the operation has side effects. It provides some behavioral context but is not comprehensive.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core action and then provides specific detail in parentheses. There is zero wasted words, and the structure is efficient and clear.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and output categories, but it lacks important context: how to interpret the returned fields, the role of site_url, and when to use this over 'request_indexing'. The absence of annotations and output schema increases the need for descriptive context, which is only partially met.

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 both parameters described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—it does not explain the relationship between site_url and inspection_url, such as site_url being the Search Console property. With full schema coverage, baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed it.

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 action (inspect a URL) and the resource (URL), and lists specific data returned (index status, coverage, canonical, richness). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'request_indexing' (submission) and 'search_analytics' (aggregate metrics).

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for checking individual URL indexing status or that 'request_indexing' is for submitting URLs for indexing. The intended use case is implied but not explicitly stated.

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