gsc_request_indexing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates the tool is a write operation and mentions the unofficial behavior for general URLs. However, it does not disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential side effects, which are important for an indexing API call.

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 with two sentences that front-load the action and include a critical usage note. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the core purpose and usage nuance. It could mention authentication or rate limits, but the current content is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke 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?

The input schema has 50% description coverage (the 'url' parameter has a basic description, 'type' has only enum values). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 the tool's action ('ask Google to (re)crawl a URL') and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like gsc_inspect_url (read-only) and gsc_query by explicitly labeling it as a WRITE operation. The note about official usage adds clarity.

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 provides explicit context for when to use the tool, noting that it is officially for JobPosting/BroadcastEvent pages but works unofficially for general URLs. This gives agents a clear boundary, though it does not compare directly to siblings or state when not to use it.

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