Request indexing

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the extension queues and performs the action later, there is a ~10 requests/site/day limit, eta_text refers to the click not indexing, and confirmation works through elicitation or a refusal plus confirm token. These are exactly the operational details an agent needs.

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 front-loaded with the core action and remains information-dense, but it is a long paragraph that could be split or tightened slightly. Most sentences carry necessary behavioral detail.

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 non-idempotent, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description covers the critical unknowns: deferred execution, rate limits, preview behavior, force semantics, and the confirmation flow. Nothing essential to correct invocation appears 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics for force (a re-index) and confirm (the token from a refusal that stands in for the user's yes), beyond what the schema descriptions alone state.

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 specific verb and resource: it queues an indexing request for a URL on one of the user's sites, including URLs not yet part of the site. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit_indexnow, check_url, and list_indexing_requests.

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?

It explains the practical conditions well: preview first, skip already-indexed pages unless force is true, and require user confirmation for re-indexes, non-sitemap URLs, and the last request of the day. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the intended usage context is clear.

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