indexing_report

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 one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: the report is computed from previously stored local inspections rather than triggering fresh crawls or API calls. It says nothing about result size, pagination, or behavior when no inspection data exists yet.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence identifying the report, followed by a compact semicolon-delimited list of contents — no filler. The dense enumeration is a bit listy, but every fragment maps to actual report content, so nothing is wasted.

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?

With six parameters, high schema coverage, and no output schema, the description must convey what comes back — and it does reasonably well by enumerating report sections. It omits the key operational precondition (inspections must already have been run) and any sense of report scope or limits, which matters for a report-generation tool.

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 83%, so the schema already documents site format, source enum, and the sitemap/url filters; baseline 3 applies. The description adds little beyond that, and its use of 'source' ('every reason with source') refers to reason provenance rather than the 'source' queue parameter, which is mildly confusing rather than helpful.

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?

States a specific resource (page-indexing report) and enumerates what it covers: indexed vs not, reasons with source, samples, canonicals, fetch/robots state, crawl age, rich results. The phrase 'from local inspections' distinguishes it from live-lookup siblings like inspect_url or diagnose_url, though it never names those siblings 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 named alternative. The only implicit cue is 'from local inspections', which hints that inspection data must already exist (via run_inspections / queue_urls), but this prerequisite is never spelled out, nor is it clear when an agent should pick this over indexing_changes or list_inspected_urls.

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