indexing_fix_guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the shape of the returned content (meaning, issue attribution, what to check, how to fix), which is the main behavioral question for a no-output-schema tool. It does not clarify whether the content is static documentation or derived from live property data, which is the one remaining ambiguity.

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 tightly constructed sentence that front-loads the core resource ('what each Page indexing reason means') and then enumerates the three additional things it returns. No filler, no repetition of the name or schema.

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 one-optional-parameter reference tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it tells the agent what categories of information come back and implies a static knowledge lookup. A short note on whether the guide is generic or property-specific would close the last gap.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema itself explains the single optional 'reason' parameter, including 'omit for all'. The description adds no further meaning about accepted reason values or format, so the schema does all the work and the baseline 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 clearly frames a reference/lookup tool: it returns the meaning of a Page indexing coverage reason, classifies it as a site vs. Google-systems issue, and supplies check/fix steps. That is a distinct purpose from siblings like indexing_report or diagnose_url, though it never names those siblings to make the contrast explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this once you have a coverage reason and need to interpret or remediate it. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no statement of when not to use it, and no pointer to indexing_report / diagnose_url / inspect_url as the tools for obtaining the reason in the first place.

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