check_indexing_issues

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Check for specific indexing issues' and then describes arguments; it does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, any required permissions, rate limits, or what the check actually does (e.g., API calls). This lacks critical context for an AI agent to understand side effects.

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 well-structured: a single-sentence purpose followed by an 'Args:' section. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant phrasing. The parameter explanations are pertinent and organized, though the purpose line could be slightly more specific.

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?

The description covers both parameters well and the output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, it omits behavioral context such as whether the tool is read-only, any constraints on the number of URLs, or the meaning of 'indexing issues.' For a simple check tool with two well-described parameters, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively: site_url is explained with exact format examples and domain-vs-prefix distinctions, and urls is defined as a list of URLs one per line. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could be more precise about URL formatting or limits.

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 the tool's function clearly: 'Check for specific indexing issues across multiple URLs.' This has a specific verb ('Check'), a resource ('indexing issues'), and scope ('across multiple URLs'), distinguishing it from single-URL inspection tools. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or enumerate what types of indexing issues are covered, 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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like inspect_url_enhanced or batch_url_inspection. It only provides parameter-level instructions (e.g., using the domain property for subdomain analysis), which does not clarify tool selection. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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