indexnow_submit

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by disclosing the need for an API key and a verification file, which is important context beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose and engines, followed by essential requirements. Every word adds value; no fluff or repetition.

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?

For a simple mutation tool with no output schema and only two parameters, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, when to use it, and what is required. It could optionally mention success/error behavior, but that is not critical for basic usage.

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%, so both parameters ('url' and 'skip_preflight') are fully described in the schema. The description does not add new semantic information about the parameters; it merely reinforces that a single URL is submitted, which is already stated.

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 action ('submit a single URL to IndexNow') and lists the target search engines (Bing, Yandex, Naver, Seznam, Yep). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool gsc_request_indexing by specifying it covers non-Google engines.

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 explicitly states that this tool complements gsc_request_indexing for non-Google engines, providing clear guidance on when to use it versus the alternative. It also lists prerequisites (SEO_MCP_INDEXNOW_KEY and a key-verification file), aiding proper invocation.

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