Submit URLs for indexing

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

Annotations only say it is a non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive write; the description supplies the critical missing context that it spends the user's balance with pay-per-indexed Google mode, which is exactly the kind of cost/consent disclosure annotations cannot carry. It also explains that drip_feed_days staggers submissions over time.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then cost/consent, then the one non-obvious parameter constraint. Nothing is redundant with the title and every clause carries 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?

For a 4-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the risk (spending balance), the consent requirement, and the tricky parameter. It leaves open whether the task runs asynchronously and how to track it afterward, which matters given the list_tasks/check_index siblings.

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 only 25% (just the urls count), and the description compensates partially by stating drip_feed_days' range and its Google-only restriction, which the schema does not express. The engine and title parameters get no added meaning beyond their names and enum.

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 indexing task') plus the two supported engines, which cleanly separates it from siblings like check_index or list_tasks that only inspect state.

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 precondition ('Ask the user before calling') that gates invocation, and the cost note implies this is for actual submission rather than checking. It does not, however, name a sibling alternative for the 'just checking status' case.

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