Notify URL Update

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the quota and the structured-data requirement, which are important operational constraints. It also clarifies that 'deletion' here means sending a deletion notification via the API, not destructively modifying local data, which aligns with destructiveHint=false.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and the operational constraints are compactly placed in a note. Every word contributes useful 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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete: it states the action, supported use cases, and quota. It does not describe the response format or error conditions, but no output schema exists and the input side is fully covered.

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 already documents both parameters thoroughly with 100% coverage, including the URL format and the enum meanings. The description adds no new parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Submit') and names the exact resource and API ('URL update or deletion notification via the Indexing API'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sitemap-submission siblings by focusing on URL-level notifications rather than bulk sitemaps.

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 gives clear eligibility context: it is 'officially supported only for pages with JobPosting or BroadcastEvent structured data' and mentions a daily quota of 200. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it beyond that constraint, but the restriction is strong.

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