check_indexing_issues

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 real value beyond that by disclosing the audit's scope - the specific check categories it performs - though it says nothing about limits, batching, or what the report contains.

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 sentences, all load-bearing: the first defines the audit scope, the second defines the trigger condition, the third routes away to the sibling. The scope is front-loaded and there is no 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?

For a read-only audit tool with annotations covering safety and a 100%-documented two-parameter schema, the description supplies what the agent needs to pick and invoke it. The remaining gap is that no output schema exists and the return/report shape is never described, so the agent cannot anticipate what the audit yields.

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 both siteUrl (exact GSC format) and limit (default 20, max 100) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 (Audit) plus the exact resource (top traffic pages of a property) and enumerates the four failure classes it detects: indexing failures, canonical mismatches, missing canonicals, and mobile problems. It is immediately distinguishable from the inspect_url/batch_inspect_urls siblings.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition (an indexing health pass on traffic pages) and an explicit exclusion with a named alternative set (use inspect_url or batch_inspect_urls when the URL list already exists). Nothing about routing is left to inference.

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