indexnow_submit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the behavior: 'write' and 'supports dryRun', plus the prerequisite of a hosted key at a specific URL. It does not mention irreversibility or rate limits, but the write/dryRun disclosure is a meaningful safety signal.

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 dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and then packs in the engine list, Google exclusion, key requirement, and write/dryRun mode without wasting 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?

With an output schema present and all parameters fully described in the schema, the description covers the essential operational context: purpose, target engines, key prerequisite, and dryRun capability. 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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented. The tool description adds domain context beyond the schema by explaining the key must be hosted at a public URL and that the operation supports dryRun, which helps the agent understand preconditions and behavior.

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 uses a specific verb ('Submit') and resource ('changed URLs in bulk to IndexNow search engines'), enumerates the supported engines (Bing, Yandex, Naver, Seznam, Yep), and explicitly excludes Google. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit_sitemap or request_recrawl.

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 the usage scenario: submitting changed URLs in bulk to IndexNow engines and requiring a hosted key. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with siblings such as submit_sitemap or request_recrawl, nor does it state when not to use it beyond the Google exclusion.

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