indexing_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by stating the result is filtered to problems only, includes reasons, and is capped at 50 URLs.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with the key constraint 'Problems only'. Every clause adds useful information, and there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format need not be explained. The description covers purpose, output filtering, and the URL limit, but leaves the 0%-documented parameters largely unexplained despite having four parameters and two required ones.

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% for four parameters. The description only vaguely references 'given URLs' and the 50-URL cap; it does not explain site_url, language, or concurrency, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 states a specific diagnostic outcome: identifying which given URLs are not indexed or have structured-data failures, plus the reason. It does not explicitly name or compare against sibling tools like inspect_urls, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 phrase 'Problems only' implies this tool should be used to surface problematic URLs rather than complete inspection status, and 'Up to 50 URLs' states a hard limit. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus inspect_urls or other siblings, nor prerequisites.

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