request_indexing

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does flag the operation as a write, but it omits consequences, idempotency, authentication requirements, rate limits, and failure behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.

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 a single, concise sentence that delivers the core purpose with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it 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?

The tool is a write operation with no annotations or output schema, so the description needs to explain return values, side effects, and usage context. It only covers the action, leaving the agent without enough information to confidently decide when and how to invoke it.

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 100%, so both url and site_url are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but it is not required to compensate since the schema is complete. 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?

The description clearly states the action (Notify Google), the resource (a new or updated URL), and the method (Web Search Indexing API). It explicitly calls out that this is a 'real write operation', which distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like get_indexing_status and search_analytics.

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 such as submit_sitemap or test_connection. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or when to avoid it, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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