Get per-URL results for a task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by stating that a summary count is always included and that pagination is supported via limit/offset, which are not covered by the annotations. No contradictions exist.

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 sentences with zero waste. The main action is front-loaded, followed by filtering and pagination details, and the summary-count behavior. Every sentence contributes essential information.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description covers purpose, filtering, pagination, and the summary count. It is complete for a read-only tool, though it lacks explicit routing to alternatives, which is minor given the clarity of the purpose.

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 75% (three of four parameters have descriptions). The description clarifies the purpose of limit/offset (pagination) and status (filter), adding meaning beyond the schema. It does not add detail for task_id, but the schema already explains its origin. This is more than the baseline 3 for high 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 clearly states the tool returns per-URL statuses for indexing or index-check tasks, with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('each URL'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_task (which likely returns task metadata) and check_index_status (which may check overall status), though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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 implies usage for tasks needing per-URL details and mentions pagination for large tasks, but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like get_task or check_index_status. There is no 'use this instead of X' guidance, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is the right choice.

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