check_indexing_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It notes the output is a 'prioritised summary' but omits whether it is read-only, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely reads data.

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 concise at 18 words, but it sacrifices necessary detail about parameters and behavior. It is front-loaded with the core action but could add value without becoming verbose.

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 the lack of schema descriptions and annotations, the description should cover what each parameter means, whether the tool is read-only, and what the output schema provides. It fails to do so, leaving the agent with an incomplete understanding.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, yet the description provides no explanation of any parameter. 'site_url' and 'page_urls' are not defined, and the optional 'account' is not mentioned. This leaves the agent completely reliant on parameter names, which may be ambiguous.

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 checks URLs for indexing problems and provides a prioritised summary. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'inspect_url' by claiming it is 'more actionable', which helps the agent differentiate.

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 use when a summarised, actionable view of indexing issues for multiple URLs is needed, contrasting with raw inspect_url output. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use criteria or prerequisites.

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