Page indexing

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

The description adds one useful behavioral trait beyond annotations: 'This operation may consume SEO Intellect account limits,' which warns about quota usage. However, it omits the asynchronous behavior visible in the schema, such as the ability to return a pending task_id on timeout and later poll for results, so the description is only partially transparent.

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 short and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by upstream provenance and a quota warning. Every sentence contributes useful information, though the omission of the async/task_id behavior makes it feel incomplete rather than efficiently comprehensive.

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 moderately complex due to the anyOf schema supporting both new URL submissions and task_id polling, yet the description only covers the high-level check behavior. Without an output schema, an agent is left unaware that the operation may return a task_id instead of a final result, making the description insufficient for correct invocation.

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 already provides descriptions for most parameters, including timeout_ms, wait_for_result, and poll_interval_ms, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description itself adds little parameter-level meaning beyond identifying URLs as the core input, which is sufficient given the schema coverage.

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 identifies the action ('Check whether URLs are indexed') and the resource (URLs) across two specific engines (Yandex and Google). It is specific enough to distinguish from most sibling SEO tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with nearby options like relevant_pages or keywords_checker.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites. The only added context is 'Upstream API tool: pageindex' and a quota warning, neither of which helps an agent decide between page_index and a sibling tool.

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