index_coverage

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

The description notes it is bounded and respects URL Inspection quota, which is useful behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not mention potential rate limiting or that it makes multiple requests, but the quota note is valuable. No annotations provided, so description carries burden.

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 concise sentence (24 words) that packs in purpose and the key quota note. It's front-loaded and efficient, with no wasted words.

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 moderate complexity and an output schema present, the description is sufficient. It covers the core function and a key constraint. It might benefit from mentioning it returns a summary of indexed vs total, but the output schema likely covers that. Overall, adequate.

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?

The schema covers all parameters with descriptions, so parameter semantics are well covered by schema. The description adds little beyond the schema, but with 100% coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. It does not add new meaning.

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 how many sitemap pages are indexed by Google, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from list_sitemaps and submit_sitemap, but the sibling 'inspect_url' could overlap. It is specific enough.

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 implies usage: when you need to know index coverage of a sitemap. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternatives, but the context of siblings makes it reasonable. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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