check_indexing_issues

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose that the tool is read-oriented, returns a summary and per-URL diagnosis, and covers specific problem categories. It does not mention caveats such as how many URLs are processed, whether results are cached, or possible failure modes, so transparency is acceptable but not strong.

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 a single well-structured sentence that leads with the action, states the object and diagnostic categories, and closes with the expected return format. Every phrase earns its place with no repetition or 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?

Input parameters and output forms are covered well: the schema covers the required parameters, and the description explains that the output will be a summary plus per-URL diagnosis. Given the lack of an output schema, it would be even more helpful to specify the exact response fields, but enough context is present for an agent to successfully invoke and interpret the 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 100%, so the input properties are already fully documented. The description adds only a general reference to multiple URLs but does not contribute new parameter-level meaning, which aligns with the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 a specific operation ('Check multiple URLs'), a concrete resource domain ('indexing problems'), and elaborates with recognizable diagnostics such as blocked by robots.txt, noindex, and canonical mismatches. It is clear and differentiable from single-URL inspector tools, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling batch_url_inspection.

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 'multiple URLs' implies the tool is intended for bulk checks, and the focus on indexing problems suggests when to consider it. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over similar siblings or provide exclusion criteria or workflow conditions.

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