indexing_get_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Gets' implies a read operation, but the description does not explain what notification statuses exist, what the response looks like, or whether the URL must have been published first. This leaves meaningful behavioral uncertainty for an agent.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. Front-loading is strong: the verb and resource appear immediately. However, its brevity means several useful details are absent, though conciseness itself is not the issue.

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 no annotations and no output schema, this description is too thin. An agent is not told what 'notification status' means, what possible status values are, or that this likely pairs with indexing_publish/indexing_batch_publish. The tool may be callable, but the agent cannot confidently interpret the result or decide when it is the right 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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameter 'url' is already documented as 'URL to get notification status for.' The description adds only a mild semantic tie between the URL and the status concept but does not go beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb ('Gets') and resource ('notification status for a URL'), so an agent can infer the tool's basic function. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like indexing_publish or indexing_batch_publish, but the read-vs-write distinction is evident from the verb and name.

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 use this tool versus the indexing_publish or indexing_batch_publish siblings, nor does it mention that the URL should have been previously submitted. The context is only implied by the tool name and sibling list, not stated in the description.

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