Get Indexing API status for a URL

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, so the description correctly aligns with those. It adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the credential must be a verified owner, Search Console user access is insufficient, and a 403 error does not distinguish which requirement is missing. This goes well beyond the structured annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the primary return value, the scope limitation, and the authentication requirement. The most important detail is front-loaded, and there is no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is fully sufficient. It explains what the tool reports, what it does not report, how to answer the excluded question, and the credential requirements needed for a successful call.

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 single parameter url is described in the schema with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add much. It does reinforce that the URL is used for notification history lookup, but it adds no extra format or interpretation details beyond the schema.

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 a very specific verb and resource: it returns the last notification time and type for a URL through the Indexing API. It further differentiates itself by clarifying that it does not report indexing status, and explicitly names inspect_url as the sibling that answers that question.

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 clearly tells the agent when this tool is appropriate: when checking notification history for a credential. It also explicitly redirects to inspect_url when the question is about page indexing, and it specifies the ownership prerequisite, which is a vital usage constraint.

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