check_url_indexed

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

Annotations indicate readOnly and idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral details: internally uses 'url:<URL>' operator with 'inindex=1' flag to force fresh index check, not cache. It also describes the return structure.

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 (6 lines) and well-structured: main purpose first, then technical detail, then use cases, then return format. No unnecessary information.

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 tool's simplicity, the description covers purpose, usage, internal behavior, and return format. With full schema coverage and output schema available, it provides adequate context. Missing rate limits or prerequisites, but that is acceptable for a light read-only 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 documentation coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant parameter semantics beyond the schema; it only implicitly references the parameters in the return description. No extra details on parameter usage or constraints.

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 if a URL is indexed in Google or Yandex. It uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('URL'), and distinguishes from sibling search tools like google_search and yandex_search.

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 clear use cases: 'SEO audits, indexation monitoring, 'did Google find my new page?'. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for proper selection.

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