webmaster_list_indexing_samples

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

The mention of 'continuation metadata' implies pagination behavior, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe any other side effects, though the 'read' verb and context suggest it is safe.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured and easy to parse, providing the core purpose without bloat.

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 simple paginated list operation, the description covers the essential behavior (pagination) but omits context such as what the samples represent or any relationship to other webmaster tools. Since an output schema exists, not detailing return values is acceptable, but the description could still be more informative.

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?

The schema has three parameters (host_id, limit, offset) with no descriptions. The description does not explain what these parameters mean or how they relate to the pagination mentioned. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameter usage unclear.

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 states a clear verb ('Read') and resource ('indexing samples'), distinguishing it from other list tools like 'webmaster_get_indexing_history'. However, it does not elaborate on what exactly constitutes an 'indexing sample', which could leave some ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other webmaster list tools). It only mentions pagination, but does not indicate typical use cases or conditions for selection.

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