indexing_changes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful behavioral detail that results depend on two prior inspections and that a trend series is returned alongside the change list, but it omits what happens for URLs with fewer than two inspections and how 'days' bounds the trend window.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the primary result and appends the secondary trend output. The parenthetical examples earn their place; the trailing '...' is slightly sloppy but the sentence is otherwise tight.

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 three-parameter tool with a third of its schema undocumented and no output schema, the description should explain 'days' and 'limit' and the precondition of existing inspection history. It covers the return concept but leaves an agent unable to reason about the window size or result count before calling.

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 only 33% — only 'site' is documented, while 'days' and 'limit' have no schema descriptions. The description's mention of a 'per-day inspection trend' hints that 'days' controls the window, but it says nothing about the row cap implied by 'limit', so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names the specific resource (URLs whose coverage reason changed between the last two inspections) and the secondary output (per-day inspection trend), with concrete examples like 'dropped out of the index, newly indexed'. It is distinguishable from siblings such as list_inspected_urls or indexing_report, though it never states the verb explicitly.

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 guidance and no mention of alternatives among the many indexing/inspection siblings (indexing_report, list_inspected_urls, inspect_url). The only implied precondition is that URLs must have been inspected at least twice, which the agent has to infer from 'between their last two inspections'.

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