IndexNow: URLs melden

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

Adds important behavioral context beyond the annotations: the requirement that the key file be reachable at a specific URL pattern, and that key/host can come from environment variables. This complements the openWorldHint and idempotentHint annotations. It does not detail error behavior or rate limits, but the key-file prerequisite is a notable addition.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action and recipients. Every sentence carries necessary information about inputs, defaults, and the key-file prerequisite, with no redundancy.

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?

Complete for a submission tool with no output schema: covers what it does, how to provide URLs, default sources for key/host, and the critical external requirement of the key file. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters with defaults. The description mentions key and host sources and the key file location, but adds only marginal detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb (meldet) and resource (neue oder geänderte URLs) and names the target services (Bing, Yandex, weitere Suchmaschinen). Clearly distinguishes from siblings like gsc_url_pruefen and gsc_suchanfragen, which concern Google Search Console checks rather than IndexNow submission to multiple 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?

Explains that URLs can be submitted directly or via a sitemap, which is a clear usage instruction. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like gsc_fast_seite_eins, but the context is sufficient for selection.

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