check_indexing_issues

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds useful behavioral context: site_url must be an exact GSC property from list_properties, domain properties cover all subdomains, and URLs are one per line. But it doesn't disclose response format, side effects, permissions, or rate limits. It implies read-only via 'check' but doesn't state it.

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 clear purpose sentence plus two concise parameter explanations. No wasted words.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't detail return values. It covers the two parameters thoroughly and provides prerequisite context via list_properties. It lacks explicit alternative tool guidance and a definition of 'specific indexing issues', but is otherwise complete for a two-param tool.

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%, and the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: site_url includes exact format, examples, and subdomain handling via domain properties; urls specifies the one-per-line format. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

Describes the tool as checking for specific indexing issues across multiple URLs, with a clear verb+resource. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like batch_url_inspection or inspect_url_enhanced, so it's clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

Provides a prerequisite that site_url should come from list_properties and explains domain property behavior, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like batch_url_inspection. Usage is implied by 'across multiple URLs' but not contrasted with siblings.

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