Submit URLs to IndexNow

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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations (openWorldHint, destructiveHint=false): the one-per-hour rate limit on the all=true mode and the fact that submissions already happen automatically on content changes. Permissions and error behavior are not covered, but the rate-limit disclosure is a substantive 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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the key constraint (already automatic; use for resubmission) is front-loaded before the parameter guidance. Every clause carries information.

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 zero-required-parameter submit tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: what triggers it, the two modes, and the rate limit. Nothing material 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 both parameters (all, paths) are already documented in the schema, including the hourly limit and the path-array example. The description restates the same semantics rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (submit), resource (pages), and destination (IndexNow) in the first sentence. It also implicitly separates itself from the automatic publish/update/delete submission path, so an agent can tell what this call is uniquely for.

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 the routing condition clearly: use it to resubmit specific paths, or all=true for a full submit. It also notes that publish/update/delete already submit automatically, which effectively tells the agent when this call is not needed. It stops short of naming related siblings like set_indexnow_enabled or get_indexnow_status as alternatives.

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