Check whether URLs are indexed by Google

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive, but the description adds essential context: it spends credits (~0.1 per URL), results arrive asynchronously within minutes, and the task does not submit URLs to Google. This goes well beyond what annotations convey.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, then cost and async timing, then the critical exclusion and alternative. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy 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?

With an output schema present, return values do not need explaining in the description. The description covers cost, async polling workflow, and the sibling distinction, so an agent has everything necessary to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: urls and title are both documented, including URL format, min/max items, and max length. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the schema-carrying baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Create an index-check task that reports, per URL, whether Google currently has it in the index (indexed / unindexed).' It clearly identifies the outcome and distinguishes itself from the sibling submit_urls_for_indexing by explicitly saying it does not submit anything.

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?

Provides explicit routing: 'use submit_urls_for_indexing for that' for submission, and gives the exact follow-up workflow: 'poll get_task, then read get_task_links.' This tells the agent when to use this tool and what to do after invoking it.

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