indexing_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action 'check' but does not state side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or return format. The description only lists what is checked without deeper behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant or extraneous words. It efficiently communicates the tool's core purpose.

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?

The tool has four parameters and no output schema, but the description does not explain return values or how the Google/Bing behaviors differ beyond the basics. The 100% schema coverage helps, but the description alone leaves gaps in expected output and parameter interaction.

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 a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description adds some context by linking Google to notification status and Bing to quota, which hints at how engine and type parameters might be used, but it does not explicitly map parameters to actions.

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 checks notification status for Google Indexing API and remaining daily Bing submission quota, using a specific verb ('Check') and identifiable resources. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like indexing_submit, which handles submissions.

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 use for checking status/quota but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like indexing_submit, nor does it provide any exclusions or conditions. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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