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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds two important behavioral facts beyond annotations: the call is paid and the site must be verified. It does not detail cost tiers, rate limits, or return format, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. The 'Paid.' fragment is terse but communicates a critical constraint in minimal space.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with rich annotations, the description is adequately complete on safety and cost. However, with no output schema, it does not describe what crawl issues are returned or how to interpret them, and the site parameter remains underspecified.

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%, so the description carries the burden for the single 'site' parameter. It adds that the site must be verified, which is useful, but it does not clarify whether the value should be a domain, full URL, or site identifier, nor how verification should be represented.

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 specific verb and resource: read Bing Webmaster crawl issues. It adds the 'verified site' scope qualifier. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like bing_query_stats or gsc_inspect, so it stops short of a 5.

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 only guidance is the prerequisite 'for a verified site' and the cost note 'Paid.' There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to sibling tools such as bing_query_stats or gsc_inspect.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds two useful behavioral facts: the site must be verified and the operation is 'Paid'. However, it does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or what data is returned.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. The key prerequisite and cost signal are immediately visible.

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 simple, single-parameter read-only tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential prerequisite and cost. It could be improved by noting return format or date-range defaults, but nothing critical is missing.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter 'site' is only typed as a URI in the schema. The description adds meaningful semantic constraint: the site must be a verified Bing Webmaster site, which is not captured in 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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('Bing Webmaster query statistics') with clear scope ('for a verified site'). It differentiates from sibling tools like gsc_query by naming Bing, though it does not explicitly contrast with bing_crawl_issues.

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?

Implies usage context (Bing Webmaster, verified site, paid) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not say when to choose this over gsc_query or bing_crawl_issues.

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

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description's job is to add context beyond that. It does: a 28-day aggregation window, the possibility of an empty result for low-traffic origins, and the fact that calls are billed. That cost and empty-result disclosure is exactly the kind of thing annotations cannot express.

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 compact fragments with no filler, and the identifying information (what data, what window) comes first. It is telegraphic to the point of omitting a verb, but 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?

For a read-only, two-parameter tool with no output schema, the definition covers the data source, the time window, the billing implication and the empty-result risk. What is missing is any explanation of the parameters and of what metrics are actually returned, which leaves the agent guessing at request shape.

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%, so the description needed to carry the two parameters and did not. 'origin' is only obliquely implied by 'sites', and 'formFactor' with its PHONE/DESKTOP/TABLET enum and default is never mentioned, leaving a real gap.

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 resource ('Chrome UX Report 28-day field metrics'), which is informative, but it uses no verb and the tool name 'crux' is an opaque acronym. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'pagespeed', which also surfaces performance metrics, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

No statement of when to choose this over 'pagespeed' or other siblings. The 'low-traffic sites may have no record' clause signals a failure mode rather than a usage rule, and 'Paid' flags cost but not the conditions under which the cost is justified.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds valuable context by clarifying that no indexing request occurs and flagging that the operation is paid, though it does not describe the return contents or rate-limit details.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The core operation and the key exclusion are front-loaded, and the cost warning is succinct.

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 simple two-parameter tool with rich annotations, the description covers the main behavioral distinction. But it omits parameter semantics and does not explain what the inspection returns, which is relevant because there is no output schema.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It provides no explanation of what 'site' means in Google Search Console terms or how 'url' relates to the inspected property, leaving both required parameters only inferable from their names.

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 verb and resource: 'Read Google indexed URL inspection.' It also explicitly contrasts with indexing submission ('does not request indexing'), which helps distinguish it from the sibling indexnow_submit tool.

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?

It clearly states an exclusion: this reads inspection data and does not request indexing. However, it does not name alternatives such as gsc_query or pagespeed, nor does it explain when a paid inspection is preferable to other diagnostics.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds pagination behavior and a free-tier note, but it does not disclose auth requirements, quota behavior, or result structure.

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 front-loaded and wastes no words. However, its terseness is partly under-specification rather than pure efficiency, so it is not quite exemplary for a six-parameter tool.

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 six-parameter query tool with no parameter descriptions and no output schema, the description is not complete enough. It covers pagination and free-tier context but leaves required fields, date semantics, dimensions, and return behavior unexplained.

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% across six parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only explains startRow as the pagination offset and says nothing about site, startDate, endDate, rowLimit, or dimensions, leaving most parameters semantically undocumented.

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 specific verb and resource: read Search Console search performance. It implicitly distinguishes itself from non-GSC siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate from gsc_inspect or bing_query_stats, so sibling routing is left partly to inference.

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 only usage guidance is pagination via startRow and a note about the free tier. It does not say when to use this tool instead of gsc_inspect, bing_query_stats, or other performance-related siblings, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the 'Free tier' note, which hints at quota or cost considerations, but never explains what it means, what permissions are needed, or whether pagination occurs.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero padding. The trailing 'Free tier' fragment is terse but understandable as a cost caveat.

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?

There is no output schema and no description of what a sitemap entry looks like (path, lastDownloaded, errors, warnings), and the critical property-identifier format is absent. For a tool whose only parameter is a site identifier, this leaves an agent guessing at invocation details.

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 the single required 'site' parameter, and the description says nothing about its expected format (e.g., URL-prefix vs sc-domain property identifier) or length constraints. With one undocumented required parameter, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

A clear verb and resource ('List Search Console sitemaps') tells an agent exactly what the tool returns. It does not differentiate from siblings like gsc_query or gsc_inspect, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to call this versus gsc_query or gsc_inspect, no prerequisites (e.g., property must be verified), and no exclusions. An agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: this is a WRITE operation, it requires explicit confirmation, it needs a hosted verification key, and it is paid. It still omits consequences, response behavior, and failure modes, but the added operational constraints are valuable.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with the most important qualifier (WRITE) front-loaded. Every clause carries weight: action, resource, confirmation requirement, verification key, and payment status.

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 an external write tool with no output schema, zero parameter descriptions, and paid access, the description is too sparse. It covers the confirmation and verification-key prerequisites but leaves the host/URL relationship, submission limits, and expected outcome or errors undocumented.

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 clarifies confirm:true and hints at a hosted verification key, but it does not explain the host parameter, the urls array, the 1–10,000 item limit, or how keyLocation relates to the verification key.

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 specific verb and resource: submit URLs to IndexNow. It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools (queries, inspections, stats, pagespeed, crux, sitemaps), though it does not explicitly name an alternative or non-goal.

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?

It gives prerequisites (confirm:true, hosted verification key) and cost context (Paid), which implies when the tool is applicable. However, it does not explain when to use this versus other indexing-related siblings or 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.

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful cost context ('Free tier') and hints at scoped output ('selected audits'), but does not describe rate limits, authentication, or which audits are actually returned.

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 two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and little wasted text. The phrase 'selected audits' is vague, but overall it is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 read-only tool with rich annotations, the safety profile is already handled. But with no output schema and zero parameter description coverage, the description omits what 'selected audits' means and how strategy affects results, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent trying to call it correctly.

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?

With two parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the required url and the optional strategy/default mobile behavior. It mentions neither, leaving the strategy enum entirely undocumented in prose.

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 the resource (PageSpeed Lighthouse score) and a return element (selected audits), which is clear enough to identify the tool. However, it lacks an explicit operation verb and does not distinguish itself from siblings like crux, which also deals with performance data.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as crux or gsc_inspect. 'Free tier' gives licensing context but does not help an agent decide when this tool is appropriate.

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