Check if URLs are indexed

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

Annotations already declare that this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: the operation is asynchronous (returns task_id), it costs checker credits, and results require a second call. It doesn't disclose failure handling for invalid or partially rejected URLs.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and ending with the next step; nothing is wasted. It could front-load the credit cost more prominently, but the density is appropriate.

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 async task-creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential agent needs: what is created, which engines, that credits are consumed, that the return is a task_id, and which sibling resolves it. Remaining gaps are marginal.

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 67%, so most parameters are already documented. The description only implies that a URL list and an engine are supplied, adding no format, batching, or limit guidance, and the undescribed "title" parameter gets no help from the description either.

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") plus the supported engines, so the agent knows exactly what is produced: a task, not a result. It doesn't explicitly separate itself from the sibling submit_for_indexing, which a reader must infer from the name.

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 the follow-up path explicitly ("read the result with get_report once the task is processed") and warns that checker credits are consumed. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over submit_for_indexing or whether a task can be reused/cancelled via list_tasks.

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