check_indexing_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Check' implies a read-only operation and the parameter guidance is useful, but the description does not disclose what kinds of indexing issues are reported, any request limits for the URL list, or error behavior. It is not contradictory or misleading, just minimal.

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 compact and front-loaded: a one-sentence summary followed by an Args block with no redundant text. Every sentence earns its place, and the formatting makes parameter semantics easy to parse.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details well. The main omissions are the exact nature of 'specific indexing issues' and guidance on choosing this tool over sibling inspection tools, but the output schema likely fills in return-value expectations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly. It explains that site_url must be an exact GSC property from list_properties, gives examples, and explains domain vs. site property semantics. It also clarifies that urls is a list with one URL per line, which is critical for correct invocation.

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 opening sentence 'Check for specific indexing issues across multiple URLs' names a clear verb, resource, and scope. However, the term 'specific indexing issues' is undefined and the description does not differentiate this from sibling tools like batch_url_inspection or inspect_url_enhanced, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternative tools, but the Args section provides meaningful usage guidance on how to select site_url (exact GSC property from list_properties and domain-property handling for subdomains). This is implied usage context rather than a clear routing rule, so it is slightly above no guidance but below explicit exclusions.

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