gsc_request_indexing

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

Annotations already indicate write, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds specific behavioral details: batch error handling, notify_time null being normal, scope error remediation. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose then usage and edge cases. Each sentence adds necessary 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?

No output schema, but description covers error behavior and expected null value. Could mention success response structure, but for a simple write tool it is adequate. Context of scope and availability is given.

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 100%, but description adds value beyond schema: clarifies that url or urls is required (schema lists no required), explains site_url as informational/project-scoped, and reinforces max 100. This is helpful for proper invocation.

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?

States clear action: 'Ask Google to (re)crawl one or more URLs via the Indexing API (URL_UPDATED)'. Verb+resource+method is specific and distinct from siblings like indexnow_submit.

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?

Explicitly mentions required scope ('Requires the indexing scope') and availability ('Available by default'). Describes error handling for scope/per-URL errors. Lacks explicit mention of alternatives like indexnow_submit, but the context is clear.

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